Subcontracted turnover already taxed cannot support revisional action; further adjudication on the same turnover is academic.

Revisional orders under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act could not be sustained where the contract work was executed entirely on a back-to-back subcontract basis and the subcontractors had already declared the relevant turnover and discharged the tax liability. In that situation, further examination of the remaining merits became academic because the turnover in question had already suffered tax. The revisional orders were therefore unsustainable, and the appeals succeeded with the impugned orders set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional orders passed under Section 64 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could be sustained when the entire contract work was subcontracted and the subcontractors had already included the turnover and discharged the tax liability.

Analysis: The parties accepted that the contract work was executed on a back-to-back subcontract basis and that the subcontractors had declared the relevant turnover and paid tax thereon. In that situation, examination of the remaining contentions on merits would be merely academic. Once the tax liability on the turnover stood discharged by the subcontractors, the revisional orders under Section 64 could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The revisional orders were unsustainable and the decision is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the impugned orders were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the turnover in question has already been subjected to tax by the subcontractors, a revisional order under Section 64 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 cannot be sustained and further adjudication on the same turnover becomes academic.

---