Just a moment...
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 rejection of the rectification application was sustainable when the assessing authority had not considered the assessee's objection that, in respect of unsold apartment units, no works contract existed in the absence of any contract with purchasers, and whether such omission constituted an error apparent on the face of the record.
Analysis: The assessment was made by applying the purchase value of materials under Rule 10(2)(a) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, but the assessee had specifically contended that a substantial number of apartments remained unsold and that no agreement to sell had been entered into in respect of those units. The legal position on building contracts was taken from the principle that construction activity becomes a works contract only from the stage when the developer enters into a contract with the flat purchaser. If the assessing authority ignores a specific and relevant objection of this nature, the omission is not a mere disagreement on merits but a failure to consider material already on record.
Conclusion: The rejection of rectification could not be sustained. Ext. P6 was set aside and the rectification application was directed to be reconsidered in accordance with law, with recovery kept in abeyance until then.