<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (9) TMI 1733 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING - MAHARASHTRA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275152</link>
    <description>Under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, works-contract receipts are taxable in the hands of the principal contractor on the full contract value, including amounts executed through sub-contractors and sums retained by the principal contractor, subject only to deductions expressly permitted by the statute and rules. The ruling treats the contractor and sub-contractor within the statutory principal-agent framework and confirms that the subcontracted portion does not fall outside the tax net merely because performance is delegated. Prospective effect was refused because no ambiguity in the statutory scheme or other sufficient basis was shown to protect past liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2018 06:49:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=535017" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1733 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING - MAHARASHTRA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275152</link>
      <description>Under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, works-contract receipts are taxable in the hands of the principal contractor on the full contract value, including amounts executed through sub-contractors and sums retained by the principal contractor, subject only to deductions expressly permitted by the statute and rules. The ruling treats the contractor and sub-contractor within the statutory principal-agent framework and confirms that the subcontracted portion does not fall outside the tax net merely because performance is delegated. Prospective effect was refused because no ambiguity in the statutory scheme or other sufficient basis was shown to protect past liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275152</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>