9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RDER Heard Mr. A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Deuri, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Also heard Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Taxation Department, for respondent Nos.3 and 4 2. The matter pertains to determination of the quantum of tax liability to be paid by the petitioner upon successful execution of works contract, as to wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VAT regime. However, the payment to the extent of Rs. 3,05,64,387/- and 3,83,84,601/- towards the said work was made on 21.11.2017 and 27.11.2019 respectively. 5. According to the petitioner, since the petitioner had successfully executed the work during the VAT regime, he would be entitled to pay only 5% VAT liability and not 12% under the GST regime which came into operation on implementation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses on happening of a taxable event, i.e., supply of goods and services and a contract executed before 1st July, 2017 will attract liability under the GST if the supply is made post 1st July, 2017 and payment is received in the GST regime. Accordingly, even if the agreement is made prior to 01.07.2017, the liability to pay GST will arise at applicable rate if the supply is made or invoice is raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fixed under the VAT regime or under the GST regime, as the case may be. 10. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam for determination of tax liability of the petitioner which may be decided on the basis of the Circular dated 24.08.2017 and the petitioner will accordingly deposit the determined tax amount. However, it goes without saying that if the petitioner is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
