TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , or on behalf of, the client - Held that:- in determining the taxable value, in the present circumstances, Notification 39/2009 dt. 23.9.2009 has been issued, allowing deductions on the value of inputs used in the manufacture/processing of alcoholic beverages, subject to the conditions laid down there under. Cessation of service tax liability - Date of amalgamation/ merger between the service provider and principal - Held that:- Date of amalgamation/ transfer of the Appellant s brewery unit with M/s Skol Breweries Ltd. In the scheme of arrangement as per Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for amalgamation of the Appellant s brewery division with M/s Skol Breweries Ltd. - HELD THAT:- The appointed date i.e. as on 31.3.2009 be taken as the date of amalgamation/merger of the Brewery Division with M/s SKOL as sanctioned by the Hon ble Bombay High Court. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The fact that the Appellant had manufactured beer, affixed the brand name of SKOL and supplied it to them or sold to the customers of M/s SKOL is known to the department. Therefore, there was no suppression of fact, hence, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked - demand is ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marketing/dealer network. They were also having a manufacturing unit at Aurangabad. 4. The appellant has entered into a bottling/brewing agreement dated April 11, 2007, with M/s SKOL Breweries Ltd. for manufacture and bottling of beer with the brand name Fosters . Elaborating the main features of the agreement, the learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant manufactures Fosters Beers as per the knowhow, specification of SKOL and the brand name Fosters belongs to SKOL. The purchase of raw materials, packing materials, chemicals, labels, consumables etc. for manufacturing the said bear was on account of appellant and the title, property and ownership of manufactured beer having brand name Fosters vest solely with the appellant. The said manufactured beer is sold by the appellant to SKOL or buyers nominated by SKOL on outright basis at the price fixed by SKOL. The appellant receives sale price/consideration on sale of the beer from the respective buyers. As a consideration for the agreement dated 11.4.2007, the appellant pays ₹ 27/- per case (of 12 bottles) to SKOL. The appellant discharges appropriate excise duty and other taxes leviable unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture of the beer, the appellant sell the same either to SKOL or to the buyers/indenters of SKOL as directed by SKOL at the price indicated by SKOL. The prices for sale of the goods are also being paid by the customers to the appellant. The appellant did not receive anything from SKOL as a consideration for providing any service and rather the appellant has been paying ₹ 27/- per case(12 bottles) of Fosters beer to SKOL in terms of the agreement. 4.3. The learned Advocate referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Cibatul Ltd. 1985 (22) ELT 302 (SC) submitted that Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act defines manufacture and manufacturer . The phrase manufacturer defined as a person who manufactures on his own account ; it also refers to person who employed/hired a labour . Interpreting the terms of agreement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said held that the manufacturer since manufactures the goods, in accordance with the manufacturing programme drawn jointly by buyer and seller, keeping in mind the restriction imposed by the buyer relating to specification of the goods and price at which it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Advocate further argued that the Revenue cannot re-write the contract made by the parties. In support, he has referred to the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT S. Ramal Amal (1982) 135 ITR 292 . The nature of the transaction in the present case is of sale of goods and not the service per se. The intention of the parties in the present case is of manufacture and sale of the goods on outright basis. In the present case, the essence of the service contract is rendition of service from SKOL to appellant and not vice- -versa. In support, the learned Advocate referred to the judgment in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 2006 (3) SCC (1). It is his submission that in the present case, Revenue cannot extract contract of service from the appellant to M/s SKOL from contract of sale of beer by appellant to buyers. Further, the parties have intended for rendition of service from the appellant to SKOL and the stipulation in the contract also does not support the allegation of the department as the consideration flows from appellant to SKOL and not from SKOL to appellant. 4.6. The learned Advocate has further submitted that the appellant manufactures and se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nter alia, requires obtaining a fresh certificate of incorporation in new name. Therefore, the resulting company obtained fresh certificate of incorporation in the new name on 22.6.2012. It is his contention that since the arrangement has been sanctioned by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court w.e.f. the appointed date i.e. close of business as of March 31, 2009, therefore, the reason given by the adjudicating authority observing the change of name dated i.e. 22.6.2012 as the material date for considering the merger is incorrect. In support, the learned Advocate placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Marshall Sons Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO (197) 2 SCC (302), CST Vs. ITC Hotels Ltd. 2012 (27) STR 145 (Tri-Del), CIT Vs. Swastik Rubber Products Ltd. (1983) 140 ITR 304 (Bom). 4.9. Learned Advocate has also submitted that the demand notice is barred by limitation as there is no suppression of facts inasmuch as the details pertaining to contract of manufacturing agreement were placed before the Department in the year 2007 and the Department had issued as how cause cum demand notice for the period from Sept, 2006 to March, 2010 on SKOL demanding Service Tax on the tota ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are concerned, the exemption Notification No. 39/2009-ST would be available to the service provider provided, however, there should be documentary proof specifically indicating value of these inputs. Thus, the Service Tax has been imposed only on the value of service provided by the contract bottling unit and does not tax the product and manufacture of alcohol beer. The value of raw materials and packing materials are not considered as elements for computing Service Tax under the said Notification. Besides statutory levy like, state excise duty, VAT, etc. are excluded while computing the taxable value for levy of Service Tax. Thus, it is only on the actual value of the service provided by the job workers has been considered for the purpose of Service Tax. 5.1 Referring to the bottling/brewing agreement between the appellant and SKOL dated 11.4.2011, the learned Spl. Counsel has submitted that various services in relation to production and processing of alcoholic beverages, to SKOL has been provided. It is his contention that all these services are clearly in relation to production and processing of alcoholic beverages, therefore, satisfies the amended definition of Business Auxi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that on a plain reading of section 65 (19) of the Finance act 1994, it is quite clear that service tax is not levied on the manufacture of alcoholic beverages, it is levied on the services provided in relation to such manufacture/processing carried out by the service provider for or on behalf of its client. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that service tax which is sought to be levied is nothing but tax on manufacture of goods or sale of goods is totally incorrect. 5.4 The Ld. special counsel further submitted that the appellants rendering services in relation to the manufacture or processing of non-excisable goods for or on behalf of SKOL. As per the amended definition of business auxiliary service, taxes not levied when any person undertakes manufacturing of alcoholic beverages on his own account. It is levied only when services are provided in relation to production or processing of goods for or on behalf of clients. It is to be noted that service tax is being levied on the service provided and not on manufacture or sale of alcoholic beverages. Therefore it is incorrect to say that the activities undertaken by the appellant amount the manufacture and outright ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant with M/s SKOL Breweries Ltd. was 31/3/2009 and not 29/3/2019, the Ld. Special counsel has urged that a combined reading of the meaning of appointed date , effective date , clause 2 which provides for date of coming into effect, clause 9.5, clause 9.8 and clause 16 which provides that the scheme is conditional, would indicate that merger becomes effective only upon fulfillment of all the conditions as per clause 16 of the scheme of arrangement. It is clear from the records that after approval of the scheme by the Hon ble High Court, certificate of incorporation was obtained from the Registrar of Companies on 22/6/2012. Therefore the effective date of merger would be 22/6/2012 and not 31/3/2009 as claimed by the appellant. Thus it follows that the appellant had functioned independently till 21/6/2012 and provided services to SKOL in relation to production or processing of alcoholic beverages. In support he has referred to the judgment of Hon ble Patna High Court in the case of Tata iron and steel Co Ltd Vs. Presiding officer and others (2001) IIILLJ 66 Pat., Tribunal in the case of Technocraft Industries India Ltd Vs CCE Mumbai 2000(120) ELT 106 (T), CCE Chandigarh Vs Nahar I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... algamation or 21.06.2012, when the certified copy of the order of High Court sanctioning the scheme was filed with Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, thereby, service rendered to self, for the disputed period, hence no tax is payable; (iii) the demand is barred by limitation. 8. By virtue of an agreement between the Appellant and M/s SKOL Breweries Ltd dt.11.04.2007, made effective from 12.09.2006, the Appellant agreed to manufacture beer, bearing the brand name owned by M/s SKOL, and clear/sale the same in the local market to the customers/indenters of M/s SKOL Ltd. or supply the same to M/s SKOL itself. The sale proceeds are retained by the Appellant but were required to pay ₹ 27/per case of 12 bottles of beers as per the agreement to M/s SKOL. The department confirmed service tax on the entire sale proceeds received by the Appellant on sell of the said beer. 9. The Revenue alleged that the Appellants had provided taxable service under the category of Business Auxiliary Service , as amended w.e.f 01.9.2009 particularly under clause (v) i.e. production or processing of goods for, or on behalf of the client, hence liable to service tax. 10. The Appellants in a si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Act,1944. [ Explanation . - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this clause, - (a) commission agent means any person who acts on behalf of another person and causes sale or purchase of goods, or provision or receipt of services, for a consideration, and includes any person who, while acting on behalf of another person - (i) deals with goods or services or documents of title to such goods or services; or (ii) collects payment of sale price of such goods or services; or (iii) guarantees for collection or payment for such goods or services; or (iv) undertakes any activities relating to such sale or purchase of such goods or services; After 01.9.2009 [(19) business auxiliary service means any service in relation to, - (i) promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client; or (ii) promotion or marketing of service provided by the client; or [ * * * * ] (iii) any customer care service provided on behalf of the client; or (iv) procurement of goods or services, which are inputs for the client; or [ Explan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d) of section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944); (c) manufacture has the meaning assigned to it in clause (f) of section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944). 15. Now, Reading both the provisions in juxtaposition prevailing prior to 1/9/2009 and thereafter, it can be noticed that in the earlier provision it was prescribed that any activity that amounts to manufacture within the meaning of section 2(f) of Central excise Act, 1944 be excluded from the scope of the said definition. It did not prescribe the resultant of such activity whether excisable goods or otherwise, but, by implication, it is to be understood that goods which fall within the purview of the Central Excise Tariff Act,1985 were only covered there under the exclusion clause. In the amended provision, after 1/9/2009, it is stipulated that to fall within the exclusion clause, not only the activity should be manufacture within the scope of section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, but the resultant should also be an excisable goods . The meaning of manufacture is retained as was assigned earlier however, the meaning of excisable goods has been prescribed under the new provision. 16. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n if a process of manufacture is undertaken for the client, but the resultant product does not fall under the category of excisable goods, such as alcoholic beverages, the service tax would be attracted. Certain other goods which would also fall under BAS on account of the proposed change would be kept outside the tax net by way of exemption notification, to be issued at the appropriate time. 17. We find merit in the argument of the revenue. After the amendment to the definition of Business Auxiliary Service with effect from 1/9/2009, the activity of manufacture of non-excisable goods, that is alcoholic beverages, would fall within the scope of Business Auxiliary Service. This receives support from the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court where under the constitutional vires of levy of service tax on the activity of brewing/bottling undertaken by the independent bottling/brewing Manufacturers of alcoholic beverages for their clients, has been held to be constitutionally valid. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the activity of manufacture of alcoholic beverages, being not an excisable goods, accordingly, does not fall within the exclusion clause of the amended definiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d permitted assigns) of the OTHER PART. RECITALS A. FIPL is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing beer and possesses necessary and adequate facilities for manufacturing and bottling of beer and for this purpose own and operates a brewery at Plot No.l99, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad 431 136 under a valid and effective license from the State of Maharashtra. B. Skol is a company also engaged in the business of manufacturing beer. Accordingly, the parties are desirous of entering into a contract manufacturing and sale arrangement for the production and sale of Skol Beer of the quality and quantity as prescribed by Skol which FIPL agrees to produce, bottle and dispatch to Skol and/or to its indenters to the complete satisfaction of Skol in accordance with the provisions thereof. C. The parties have agreed mutually on the terms and conditions of the above arrangement and wish to reduce the same into writing. NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITH NESSETH AS UNDER: 1. DEFINITIONS In this Agreement (including the Recitals) the following words and phrases shall, unless the context requires otherwise, have the following meanings 1.1 Agreement Means th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of Skol Beer as per the Specifications laid down by Skol. In the event that the quality of the Skol Beer manufactured by FIPL does not conform to the Specifications, the same shall be deemed to be a material breach of this Agreement by FIPL. 2.5 FIPL will obtain at its cost all raw materials, packing materials, labels and chemicals and consumables required conforming to specifications, quality and terms as specified in writing by Skol. 2.6 FIPL shall immediately set aside storage space to store all raw materials, packing materials and chemicals and consumables to be used for manufacturing Skol Beer and keep and maintain adequate records and provide complete and accurate information on stocks of raw materials, packing material and chemicals and consumables on a weekly basis and in any event upon such request being made by Skol. 2.7 FIPL shall permit Skol s technical representatives ( Skol Representatives ) to enter its premises who shall from time to time supervise the manufacture of Skol Beer at the Brewery. FIPL shall, free of charge, provide suitable office accommodation and laboratory chemicals equipment/s etc, and facilities to the satisfaction of Skol for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of this Agreement. 2.12 FIPL and Skol shall respectively comply with all the laws and statutory rules and regulations relating to manufacture and sale of Skol Beer. 2.13 FIPL hereby agrees that it will not enter into any contracts with any companies manufacturing and marketing brands owned by United Breweries, Asia Pacific Breweries, Inbev, Carisberg or Scottish and Newcastle or any other multinational or local brewer. 2.14 All expenses including diesel, furnace oil, water, bought out power, stores and spares for plant and machinery maintenance (including effluent and water treatment) utility consumables, workers remuneration, fixed overheads, local licenses fees, taxes and other statutory levies to be incurred under this arrangement shall be borne by FIPL. Provided that all statutory taxes and levies relating to the transport and sale of Skol Beer shall be borne by Skol as described in Clause 3.2; for the avoidance of doubt, skol shall not bear the cost of the annual brewery licence fees and other statutory taxes and levies that are for the account of FIPL. 2.15 Skol shall be responsible to apply for label registration in respect of Skol Beer manufactured b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd make available any additional quantities as may be agreed upon. 2.25 FIPL is further obligated to ensure that packaging, including body labels, back labels, foils, etc, shall be in accordance with directions given by Skol, from time to time and that the Skol Beer shall be bottled in universally acceptable beer bottles or as may be specified by Skol. 3. PRICES 3.1 Skol and FIPL shall, from time to time, agree on the sale price of a Beer case of 12 (twelve) bottles of 650 ml and 24 (twenty four) bottles of 330 ml each of Skol Beer (a Case ) manufactured by FIPL in terms of and in accordance with this Agreement. Out of sale proceeds collected from the indenters, FIPL will pay Skol the net proceeds of ₹ 27/- (Rupees Twenty Seven only) per case. 3.2 The net proceeds shall be exclusive of local excise duty, sales tax, export pass fee, octroi, freight, breakages, transit insurance and any other statutory taxes and levies. FIPL shall be responsible for the remittance of all taxes, duties and other levies and indemnify Skol against any liabilities arising thereof. FIPL also agrees to pass on the concessions/exemptions on taxes or duties and levies to Skol as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tipulates that the plant is in proper running condition for continuous operations at all times and appellant shall ensure payment of all dues to the local Electricity Board and other authorities to avoid disruption of production; clause 2.14 stipulates that all expenses namely, diesel, furnace oil, water, power, stores and spares for plant and machinery, consumables, workers remuneration, fixed overheads local licenses fees, taxes and other statutory levies shall be borne by the appellant; under clause 3.1 SKOL and appellant shall agree on the sale price of a beer case of 12 bottles of 650ml. and 24 bottles of 330ml and out of the sale proceeds collected from the indenters, the appellant will pay Skol the net proceeds of ₹ 27 per case; clause 3.2 stipulates that the net proceeds shall be exclusive of excise duty, sales tax octroi, freight, breakages, transit insurance etc.; clause 3.3 states that sale of beer be made according to dispatch instructions issued by Skol or its indenters, the invoices shall be raised by appellant at the prices communicated by Skol to them chronically, the appellants shall not be entitled to receive any amount other than expressly set out and an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wholesale prices at which the buyer sold the products in the market. The question before Hon ble Supreme Court was whether the wholesale price of the goods at which it was sold by the seller to the buyer for assessment or the price at which the buyer sold the goods in wholesale in the market be adopted for the purpose of assessment. In these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the goods were manufactured by the seller M/s Cibatul Ltd. on his own account and not on behalf of the buyer, hence, the whole sale price at which it was cleared/sold to the buyer M/s Ciba Geigy Ltd. be relevant for excise duty purpose. 25. In Poona Bottling s case, the petitioner was manufacturing and bottling of soft drinks like Gold Spot, Limca, Thumsup etc. They are registered with the Central Excise Department for the purpose of manufacturing the said soft drinks and installed the bottling plant by an investment of about ₹ 40 lakhs. For the manufacturing of soft drinks it has to be purchase numerous articles such as bottles, crown corks, sugar, citric acid etc. Besides these, it also purchased essence from M/s Parle under franchise agreement dt.25.07.1977 and 27.02.1978. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufactured branded beer in the local market, but the customers/indenters are as per the instruction of M/s Skol; the sale price is fixed by M/s Skol after mutual consultation. Thus it is not a simple provision of service agreement, where under, the service is flown from appellant to M/s Skol and the consideration is received against the service rendered. It is the argument advanced on behalf of the revenue that the service charges are adjusted against the sale price, and the balance amount returned to the service receiver out of the sale proceeds of manufactured branded beer for and on behalf M/s SKOL. Thus in determining the taxable value, in the present circumstances, Notification 39/2009 dt. 23.9.2009 has been issued, allowing deductions on the value of inputs used in the manufacture/processing of alcoholic beverages, subject to the conditions laid down there under. The said Notification reads as: Business Auxiliary Services - Exemption to value of inputs used for providing taxable service during manufacture/processing of alcoholic beverages In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009 or such other date as may be fixed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, or by such other authority having jurisdiction under law. ...... (f) Effective Date means the last of the dates on which all the conditions and matters referred to in Clause 16 hereof have been fulfilled. References in this Scheme to the date of coming into effect of this Scheme or effectiveness of the Scheme shall mean the Effective Date. In Clause 2 of the said arrangement, it is mentioned as: 2. Date of Coming into Effect: The scheme shall be deemed to be effective from the appointed date, but shall be operative from the Effective date. 29. The Hon ble Bombay High Court by order dt.29.03.2012, allowed the said Scheme and directed the petitioner company to lodge copy of the order and the scheme with the concerned Registrar of Companies within 30 days from the date of issue of the order by the Registrar. It is the contention of the Appellant that the appointed date i.e.31.03.2009 be considered as deemed transfer date of the Appellant Company and not the effective date, whereas Revenue s contention is that the scheme of amalgamation would come into force only on s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appened in this case it should follow that the date of amalgamation/date of transfer is the date specified in the scheme as the transfer date . It cannot be otherwise. It must be remembered that before applying to the Court under Section 391(1), a scheme has to be framed and such scheme has to contain a date of amalgamation/transfer. The proceedings before the Court may take some time; indeed, they are bound to take some time because several steps provided by Sections 391 and 394A and the relevant Rules have to be followed and complied with. During the period the proceedings are pending before the Court, both the amalgamating units, i.e. the Transferor Company and the Transferee Company may carry on business, as has happened in this case but normally provision is made for this aspect also in the scheme of amalgamation. In the scheme before us, clause 6(b) does expressly provide that with effect from the transfer date, the Transferor Company (Subsidiary Company) shall be deemed to have carried on the business for and on behalf of the Transferee Company (Holding Company) with all attendant consequences. It is equally relevant to notice that the courts have not only sanctioned the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to the issues arising under Central Excise Act or under Chapter 5 of Finance Act, 1994.It is observed as: 10. The law declared by the Apex Court is binding and is required to be followed. The submission of the learned DR that the ratio of the above judgment given in the context of income tax would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as there is no specific provision to that effect under the Central Excise Act or under the Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be appreciated inasmuch as the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts, in terms of the Article 141 of the Indian Constitution. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi and the Kolkata having held the date of amalgamation as 1-4-2004 has to be considered as the correct date of amalgamation. If that be so, admittedly, the appellant cannot be held to be providing services to itself. The Tribunal in the case of Precot Mills - 2006-TIOL818-CESTAT-BANG. = 2006 (2) S.T.R. 495 (Tri.-Bang.), has held that for leviability of service tax, there should be a service provider and a service receiver. No one renders service oneself, as such, there can be no question of leviability of service tax. Ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co. and that of Jindal Strips Ltd, held as follows:- 7. In the light of the foregoing binding precedents there remains no scope for any debate that the date of amalgamation in the present case is to be held to be 1-4-2007 and not 20-6-2008. Obvious consequence of this is that the service rendered during the impugned period (1-4-2007 to 313-2008) became service to self and consequently service tax paid during the said period became eligible for refund. 36. Revenue has referred to the judgment of Hon ble Patna High Court in Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd s case. In the said case, there was merger/amalgamation of its subsidiary M/s Indian Tube Co. Ltd with the holding company i.e M/s Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. The issue before the Court was what pay scale, dearness allowance and other benefits the employees are entitled and from which the same shall be given to them. The Tube company merged with Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd with effect from 1.4 1983, the appointed date where as the Bombay High Court and Calcutta High Court had passed the Order on 15.5.1985 and the copy of the Orders were filed with the Registrar of Companies on 01.09.1985 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, West Bengal Ors. (supra) as well as UCO Bank Ors. Vs Dipak Debbarma Ors. (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners shall not be of any assistance to the petitioners. As observed hereinabove, both the Acts operate in different fields and with respect to different eventualities. Therefore, considering the pith and substance of Section 52 of the GVAT Act, it cannot be said to be in conflict with the Union Legislation. Consequently, upholding the constitutional vires Section 62 of GVAT Act, 2003, their Lordships observed as follows:- 28. In view of the above and for the reasons afore stated, it is held that Section 52 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act cannot be said to be beyond legislative competence, and therefore, the same cannot be said to be ultra vires to Article 246 252 of the Constitution of India. It is held that Section 52 of the GVAT Act is within the State legislative competence under Entry 52 of List II of Seventh Schedule and the same cannot be said to be encroaching upon the powers of the Union legislation. Therefore, challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 2 (23) (d) and 52 of the to the GVAT Act fails. 37. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
