Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (9) TMI 1116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h Rule 28(8) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Rules, 2006? - Held that: - in cases other than those falling in clause (iiia) of subrule( 8)(b) of Rule 28, an application for composition of tax would have to be made within 30 days from the beginning of the contract. However, in cases where the works contract is ongoing during the year 2006-2007, the last date for filing the application would be 30.11.2006, in such a case, the requirement of filing application within 30 days from the commencement of work envisaged in clause(iii) of subrule( 8)(b) of Rule 28, would not apply. The authorities below however, did not apply the provisions of clause (iiia) and merely with the aid of clause (iii) rejected the assessee's application for composition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing the financial year 2005-2006 and, therefore, as per the provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Rules, 2006( the said Rules for short), such permission cannot be granted. The assessee challenged such order before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by an order dated 17.5.2007 rejected the appeal by giving elaborate reasons. The authority referred to the provisions of section 14A of the VAT Act and rule 28(8) of the said Rules and held that since the works in question had commenced before 1.4.2006, in terms of section 14A(3) of the VAT Act and rule 28(8)(b)(ii)(iii) of the said Rules, such application was correctly rejected. The assessee thereupon approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgement upheld the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anything contained in this Act, the Commissioner may, in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, permit every dealer referred to in subclause( f) of clause(10) of section 2 to pay at his option in lieu of the amount of tax leviable from him under this Act in respect of any period, a lump sum tax by way of composition at such rate as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette having regard to the incidence of tax on the nature of the goods involved in the execution of the total value of the works contract. (2) The provisions of subsections( 3) and (4) of section 14 shall apply mutatis mutandis to a dealer who is permitted under subsection( 1) to pay lump sum by way of compo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts conclusion. (ii) An application made under this rule shall be in respect of those contracts, which begin during the period for which the dealer hold valid registration certificate under the Act. (iii) Such an application shall be made within thirty days from the beginning of the contract. (iiia) An application for permission to pay lump sum for the ongoing works contract during the year 2006-2007 shall be submitted on or before the 30th November, 2006. 7. In clause(iii) of subrule( 8)(b) of Rule 28, one of the conditions for composition of tax was that application for such purpose shall be made within 30 days from the beginning of the contract. However, clause (iiia) was added on 11.10.2006 and it provided that application f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of tax on the ground that the same was beyond 30 days from the commencement of the contract. Had clause (iiia) not been added to subrule( 8) of rule 28, perhaps their view may even have been correct. It may be that when the assessee filed the application for composition of tax on 13.5.2006, clause (iiia) was not yet added to statute book. By the time, such an application was rejected on 9.11.2006, clause (iiia) was already inserted on 11.10.2006. The competent authority as well as the Tribunal both erred in not appreciating this aspect of the matter. The Tribunal in fact, went on to observe that even the amended rule would not cover the situation of the assessee, with which interpretation we have respectful disagreement. From the submissio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates