https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783277 Rule 17(1)(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 could be invoked only where a works contractor had not maintained accounts sufficient to determine the value of goods incorporated in the contract. Rule 31 required separate records of purchases, goods used in execution, receipts, labour and allied expenditure, but it did not demand formal books in the abstract. Because the sufficiency of the petitioner's records could not be conclusively assessed on the material before the Court, the assessment orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh scrutiny, with an opportunity to produce the relevant records. en-us Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2025 11:50:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783277 Rule 17(1)(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 could be invoked only where a works contractor had not maintained accounts sufficient to determine the value of goods incorporated in the contract. Rule 31 required separate records of purchases, goods used in execution, receipts, labour and allied expenditure, but it did not demand formal books in the abstract. Because the sufficiency of the petitioner's records could not be conclusively assessed on the material before the Court, the assessment orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh scrutiny, with an opportunity to produce the relevant records. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783277