Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether tax deducted at source under Section 106 of the Meghalaya Value Added Tax Act, 2003 in respect of works contracts is to be confined to the taxable turnover after the deductions contemplated by Section 5(2), and how the deduction mechanism is to be harmonised with Schedule IV-A and Section 5(2)(c).
Analysis: The charging provision under Section 5 levies VAT only on taxable turnover, which requires deduction of exempt sales, inter-State sales, outside sales, import and export sales, and, in relation to works contracts, labour, services and other like charges, subject to the statutory mode of ascertainment. Section 106, being only a machinery provision for deduction at source, cannot operate beyond the charging provision. The prior decision had already read down Section 106 to bring it into conformity with Section 5(2) by confining deduction to the taxable turnover. The only further clarification required was that deduction under Schedule IV-A is not to be duplicated where labour and service charges are actually ascertainable from the contract, because Schedule IV-A applies only when such charges are not ascertainable.
Conclusion: Deduction at source under Section 106 must be made only on taxable turnover as worked out under Section 5(2), with Schedule IV-A applied only in the circumstances contemplated by Section 5(2)(c); no double deduction is permissible, and the final bills were directed to be settled accordingly.