Works contract records must be examined before invoking Rule 17(1)(g); assessment set aside and remanded for fresh scrutiny.

Rule 17(1)(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 could be invoked only where a works contractor had not maintained accounts sufficient to determine the value of goods incorporated in the contract. Rule 31 required separate records of purchases, goods used in execution, receipts, labour and allied expenditure, but it did not demand formal books in the abstract. Because the sufficiency of the petitioner's records could not be conclusively assessed on the material before the Court, the assessment orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh scrutiny, with an opportunity to produce the relevant records.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessing authority was justified in invoking Rule 17(1)(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 and rejecting the petitioner's records without first examining whether the accounts maintained under Rule 31 were sufficient.

Analysis: Rule 31 required a dealer executing works contracts to maintain separate accounts and records relating to purchases, goods used in execution, receipts, labour and allied expenditure. Rule 17(1)(g) could be applied only when the dealer had not maintained accounts enabling determination of the correct value of goods incorporated in the works contract. The Court held that Rule 31 did not insist on the maintenance of formal books of account in the abstract, and that the material produced by the petitioner had to be examined to see whether it satisfied the statutory requirement. As the rival stands made it difficult for the Court to conclusively decide the factual sufficiency of the records, the matter required fresh scrutiny by the assessing authority.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity to produce the relevant records; Rule 17(1)(g) could be invoked only if the records remained deficient.

---