Works contract deductions for sub-contractor receipts must follow the substantive tax principle, with remand for fresh consideration.

The revisional order disallowing deduction for amounts paid to sub-contractors under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules was set aside because the authority had not properly applied the governing principle on works contracts. In works contracts, property in goods passes on incorporation, and the same execution cannot be treated as giving rise to multiple deemed sales merely because the contractee and sub-contractor lack privity. The deduction rule is meant to ensure sub-contractor receipts are brought to tax in the correct turnover, not to override the substantive law on works contracts. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with the constitutional challenge left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional order disallowing deduction for amounts paid to sub-contractors under Rule 3(2)(i-1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 could be sustained without properly applying the governing principle on taxation of works contracts and sub-contract receipts.

Analysis: The governing principle is that in works contracts the property in goods passes on incorporation in the works, and even in the absence of privity between the contractee and sub-contractor there is no warrant for treating the same execution as giving rise to multiple deemed sales. The deduction rule is intended to ensure that the sub-contractor's receipts are reflected in his turnover and do not escape assessment, not to ignore the substantive law declared on works contracts. The revisional authority had focused on the documentary requirement under the rule and had not properly applied the legal position laid down on the treatment of sub-contract work. In view of the additional material showing inclusion of the receipts in the sub-contractor's returns, the matter required reconsideration.

Conclusion: The impugned revisional order was set aside for fresh consideration and the matter was remanded to the Joint Commissioner to decide the deduction issue again in accordance with law, without deciding the constitutional challenge to the rule at that stage.

---