https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252466 Section 4(7)(d) of the A.P. VAT Act grants composition treatment only to a dealer engaged in construction and sale of specified property, and the proviso exemption is available only where the claimant is a genuine sub-contractor of a contractor who validly exercised that option. On the facts, the petitioner was treated as a contractor under composition, not as a sub-contractor, and its own filings supported that position. The assessment was also held consistent with Article 265 and not vitiated by natural justice concerns because notice was served and no reply was filed. The writ remedy was refused due to suppression of material facts and lack of full disclosure. en-us Tue, 09 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252466 Section 4(7)(d) of the A.P. VAT Act grants composition treatment only to a dealer engaged in construction and sale of specified property, and the proviso exemption is available only where the claimant is a genuine sub-contractor of a contractor who validly exercised that option. On the facts, the petitioner was treated as a contractor under composition, not as a sub-contractor, and its own filings supported that position. The assessment was also held consistent with Article 265 and not vitiated by natural justice concerns because notice was served and no reply was filed. The writ remedy was refused due to suppression of material facts and lack of full disclosure. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 09 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252466