2013 (2) TMI 275 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court affirms inclusion of turnover from ballast supply in assessment under KGST Act

M/s. KK. BUILDERS, Versus COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER -I (WC)

M/s. KK. BUILDERS, Versus COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER -I (WC) - TMI Issues:1. Revision of assessment orders under Section 35 of KGST Act for including turnover concerning supply of ballast.2. Validity of assessment orders passed afresh pursuant to revisional orders.3. Petitioner's appeal against revisional orders and applications to condone delay.4. Contention regarding exclusion of turnover for supply of ballast under Section 7(7) of KGST Act.5. Impugning assessment orders based on revisional authority's findings.Analysis:1. The judgment deals with the revision of assessment orders under Section 35 of the KGST Act concerning the inclusion of turnover related to the supply of ballast. The revisional authority revised the original assessment orders, holding that when a contractor opts for tax payment at a compounded rate, the entire contract receipts, including turnover from the supply of ballast, must be assessed under Section 7(7) of the KGST Act. The revisional orders were passed on specific dates in 2009 and 2010.2. Following the revisional orders, the assessing authority issued pre-assessment notices, and subsequent assessment orders were passed. The petitioner challenged the validity of these assessment orders in a writ petition seeking to quash them. The petitioner also filed appeals against the revisional orders and applications to condone the delay in filing the appeals.3. The petitioner's appeals against the revisional orders were based on the argument that the turnover for the supply of ballast should be excluded from assessment under Section 7(7) of the KGST Act. However, the revisional authority had made a specific finding that the turnover for the supply of ballast should be included for compounding purposes. The petitioner's remedy at this stage was to pursue the appeals filed against the revisional orders (Ext.P9 series) rather than challenging the assessment orders passed afresh (Ext.P8 series) through the writ petition.4. The counsel for the petitioner contended that a previous judgment by the court had established that the supply of ballast constituted a contract for the supply of goods, not civil works, and therefore, the turnover related to ballast supply should be excluded from assessment under Section 7(7). However, the court noted that the revisional authority's specific finding supported the inclusion of ballast turnover for compounding, leading to the direction for fresh assessment orders.5. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that unless the petitioner succeeded in invalidating the revisional orders (Ext.P4 series), challenging the assessment orders passed afresh (Ext.P8 series) was not viable. The court directed the Tribunal to consider the delay petitions filed by the petitioner and, if the delay was condoned, to expedite the consideration of the appeals filed by the petitioner.