Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2012 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 910 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the Commissioner could have opined that the turnover of the assessee relating to laying of steel pipes in the course of execution of work for M/s. BWSSB and could have brought within the scope of entry 44 of the Sixth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 as composite contract or it should have been gone into entry 20(ii) of the Schedule, as the works contract involving laying of steel pipes other than for either plumbing or drainage facility? Whether suo motu order passed by the Commissioner in exercise of his revisional power under section 22A of the Act, was not barred in terms of sub-section (3) of section 23A of the Act? Held that:- On a careful examination of the works contract awarded by the BWSSB, it can be concluded that the contract entered into between the appellant and BWSSB is a composite contract of not only laying of the pipes, but also to do other civil works like construction of the bridges, construction of pipe saddle supports, construction of the valve chambers and RCC overhead tanks, encasing the pipes with the steel mesh, trenching and excavating along the routes. Hence, the works contract entered into by the appellant has to be treated as a composite contract involving two or more of the above categories of works falling under entry 44 of the Sixth Schedule. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law is held against the appellant. The Commissioner has taken suo motu revision under section 22A(2) of the Act and order has been passed on July 2, 2009. The appeal order dated December 12, 2003 merged with the revisional order dated February 24, 2007 and the Commissioner has passed the revisional order within a period of four years as required under section 22A(3) of the Act. There is no merit in the contention of the appellant that the revisional order passed by the Commissioner is barred by limitation. Hence, issue No. 2 is also held against the appellant. Appeal dismissed.
|