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

2021 (11) TMI 165

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the respondents that the contractees with whom the petitioner had entered into contracts for execution of works also had given list of suppliers/manufacturers from whom the petitioner is required to obtain goods for being used in execution of the works contract; and that the said goods are non-standard goods - Thus, this court is of the view that the principle enunciated in M/s.LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED s case would squarely apply to the case on hand, as the movement of goods from other States and outside the country had occasioned as a result of covenant of contract entered into by the petitioner with its contractees and such purchases by the petitioner in the course of inter-State trade are integrally connected with use of the same in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eturns filed with the concerned authority. 3. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the contracts awarded to it by the respective agencies of the State Government also specified the approved vendors from whom the petitioner is required to purchase the goods for being used in the execution of works contract; that the vendors so specified in the contract are located in other States and also in some cases, outside the country; that the goods specified in the contract are tailor made/customized goods specific to the requirement of the contractee; that the petitioner purchased the specified goods from the vendors nominated by the contractee and the movement of such goods had taken place from other States or outside the country into .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6. By the said counter-affidavit filed, the respondents claimed that though Clause 3.1.1 of the contract specifies that the goods are nonstandard and tailor made pursuant to specific requirement of the contractee; since, the movement of such goods from other States to the State of AP was terminated by taking delivery of such goods by the petitioner from the transport company and subsequently, petitioner utilized such goods in execution of works contract in the State of AP, there are two sets of transactions; that the first set of purchase and sale is a sale by the outside State dealer and purchase by the petitioner, and is liable to tax under the CST Act; while the second set of transactions, of use of such goods by the petitioner in ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ass orders afresh in accordance with law laid down therein, and therefore, even in the present case, the matter may be remitted back to the revisional authority to pass orders afresh, in the light of the law laid down by this Court in M/s.LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED s case(supra). 10. Having regard to the submissions made as above and since both the petitioner as well as the respondents are ad idem on the aspect of the issue involved in the present writ petition being covered by the decision rendered by this Court in M/s.LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED s case (supra), there is no need for this Court to delve into the details of the case. 11. Further, by the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been specifically admitted by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent for deviating from the order of the Hon ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in petitioner s own case in T.A.No.138 of 2009 in respect of similar such transactions for the period from April, 2005 to October, 2007, and on the other hand, no cogent reasons are given for choosing to follow the decisions rendered in other cases. 14. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to take a different view from the one that is expressed in the decision rendered in M/s. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED s case (supra). 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order in CCTs Reference No.LV1/375/2010, dt. 21.04.2011, passed by the 3rd respondent, is hereby set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the revisional authority t .....

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