TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreement is entered into with purchaser of the flat can only be made chargeable to tax by the State Government. Thus the decision of the Supreme Court by which parameters have been fixed with regard to levy of value Added Tax on Works contract was laid down after the tribunal had passed the order on 24.06.2011. The tribunal therefore has taken into account the law as prevailing prior to the decision of the three judge bench of the Supreme Court in L T supra. The machinery provisions exist in the Act and the Rules viz., Section 3(1) 4(1) and Rules 3 (2) (l) (m) of the Rules. The effect of the aforesaid machinery provisions has to be considered in the light of the decision of the larger bench of the Supreme Court in L T supra and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er registered under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner is engaged in the business of real estate development and sale of immovable properties. The petitioner was owner of land on which it developed an apartment complex. The petitioner entered into agreements at various stages i.e., before, during and after construction of apartments for sale with prospective purchasers for a consolidated consideration without breaking up the components for undivided interest in land and for construction. 3. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessing Officer) issued a notice proposing to reject the monthly returns filed by the petitioner for the period from April 2005 to March 2006 as incomplete and incorrect and to reassess the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that law with regard to levy of Value Added Tax on Works Contract is settled by decision of the Supreme Court in LARSEN TOUBRO VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2014 (303) E.L.T.3 (SC). It is further submitted that in the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court has held that value of the land has to be excluded from the levy and only value of goods incorporated in the works after the agreements are entered into with purchasers of the flat is chargeable to tax. In this connection, learned Senior counsel has invited our attention to para 101 of the aforesaid decision. It is further submitted that the Act and the Karnat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion of levy of penalty does not arise. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'LARSON TOUBRO VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA', 2014 (303) ELT 3 (SC) 'CCE CUS KERALA V. LASEN TOUBRO', 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has invited the attention of this court to Section 237, Section 3, Section 4(1)(c) as well as Rule 3(2)(l) (m) of the Rules as well as the Chart appended to the Rules and has submitted that the machinery provisions have been enacted by the State Legislature. It is further submitted that in L T, a three Judge bench of the Supreme Court has upheld the view taken by a two Judge bench taken in K.RAHEJA Developme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expended towards labour charges and other like charges not involving any transfer of property in goods in connection with the execution of works contract including charges incurred for erection, installation, fixing, fitting out or commissioning of the goods used in the execution of a works contract. (m) Such amounts calculated at the rate specified in column (3) of the Table below towards labour charges and other like charges as incurred in the execution of a works contract when such charges are not ascertainable from the books of accounts maintained by a dealer. 7. It is not in dispute that the correctness of the view taken by a two judge bench in Raheja supra has been referred to a bench of three judges in L T supra. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act and the Rules viz., Section 3(1) 4(1) and Rules 3 (2) (l) (m) of the Rules. The effect of the aforesaid machinery provisions has to be considered in the light of the decision of the larger bench of the Supreme Court in L T supra and the liability of the petitioner has to be assed to pay the Value Added Tax afresh. Therefore, in the facts of the case we quash the order dated 24.06.2011 passed by the tribunal and to decide the liability of the assessee to pay the Value Added Tax in accordance with the decision of the three judge bench of the Supreme Court in L T supra . Therefore, it is not necessary for us answer the substantial questions of law involved in the revision petition. In the result, the petition is disposed of. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
