TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether fabrication and installation of rolling shutters constituted a works contract eligible for tax at the compounded rate under section 8(a) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, or whether the transaction was taxable under section 6(1)(d) and section 6(1)(e) of the Act as a transfer of goods.
Analysis: The scheme of section 8(a) operates as an exception to section 6, but the second proviso to section 8(a) excludes works contracts in which transfer of material is in the form of goods. The transaction in question involved fabrication of rolling shutters as a finished product and their fixation at the customer's premises was only incidental. The cost of installation was insignificant compared with the value of the shutter and the fabrication cost. The item supplied was therefore treated as goods transferred after fabrication, and the reasoning in the decision concerning fabricated and installed equipment was applied to hold that the substance of the transaction was a sale of goods rather than a works contract entitled to compounding.
Conclusion: The claim for compounding under section 8(a) was rejected and the assessment of tax under section 6(1)(d) and section 6(1)(e) was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: A fabricated item transferred in the form of goods, where installation is merely incidental, falls outside the compounding scheme for works contracts under section 8(a) because of the proviso excluding contracts involving transfer of material in the form of goods.
TaxTMI 
