https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356459 For the period before 1 April 2006, works contracts under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act were not governed by a residual uniform rate under Section 4(1)(b). The Court reasoned that the charging provisions, definitions, turnover rules, and schedules showed tax was payable on the relevant goods at their applicable scheduled rates, while declared goods remained subject to the Central Sales Tax framework. The later insertion of Section 4(1)(c) and the Sixth Schedule introduced a separate uniform works-contract rate only from 1 April 2006, showing the amendment was not merely declaratory. The State's appeal failed and the assessees' position was upheld. en-us Tue, 06 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Apr 2018 14:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356459 For the period before 1 April 2006, works contracts under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act were not governed by a residual uniform rate under Section 4(1)(b). The Court reasoned that the charging provisions, definitions, turnover rules, and schedules showed tax was payable on the relevant goods at their applicable scheduled rates, while declared goods remained subject to the Central Sales Tax framework. The later insertion of Section 4(1)(c) and the Sixth Schedule introduced a separate uniform works-contract rate only from 1 April 2006, showing the amendment was not merely declaratory. The State's appeal failed and the assessees' position was upheld. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 06 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356459