https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156774 Section 25A of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was analysed as a works-contract recovery mechanism, but the Court held it invalid because it compelled deduction from bills even for declared goods and lacked a safeguard against double collection contrary to section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The 7 November 1984 notification was treated as surviving the amendment by virtue of the repeal-and-re-enactment principle. A flat 4 per cent deduction from every bill or invoice was held arbitrary and unreasonable for ignoring the actual taxable component. The contention that no tax arose until completion and handing over of the work was rejected; tax incidence could arise on incorporation of goods. en-us Tue, 20 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:32:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156774 Section 25A of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was analysed as a works-contract recovery mechanism, but the Court held it invalid because it compelled deduction from bills even for declared goods and lacked a safeguard against double collection contrary to section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The 7 November 1984 notification was treated as surviving the amendment by virtue of the repeal-and-re-enactment principle. A flat 4 per cent deduction from every bill or invoice was held arbitrary and unreasonable for ignoring the actual taxable component. The contention that no tax arose until completion and handing over of the work was rejected; tax incidence could arise on incorporation of goods. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 20 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156774