2015 (10) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by labour. The assessee is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). During the years 2005-06 to 2007-08, the assessee was engaged in execution of the works awarded by M/s. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short, hereinafter referred to as "KPTCL") for construction of power lines and erection of transmission towers for certain specified distances in the Districts of Hassan and Mysore. The prescribed authority classified the taxable turnovers and levied tax at four per cent. on certain items and subjected to levy of tax at 12.5 per cent on some goods. As there was some mistakes in the reassessment orders, the same were rectified....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee is by way of "turnkey project". The terms of agreement expressly provide that this is a composite contract and therefore the revisional authority was justified in levying tax treating the transaction in question as a works contract under entry 23 of the Sixth Schedule and the Tribunal has erred in treating the case as of sale and levying tax at four per cent. under entry 96 of the Third Schedule and therefore she submits a case for interference is made out. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the assessee supported the impugned order. 4. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the point that arises for our consideration in these revision petitions is: "Whether the contract executed by the assessee for M/s. KPTC....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly set out. For the same value the supply contract was awarded to the assessee. The turnover declared by the assessee is liable to tax at four per cent. in respect of scheduled goods. In respect of unscheduled goods, the tax levied at 12.5 per cent. on supply of the said materials, the title in the case is passed to M/s. KPTCL. Thereafter, in turn handed over the said materials to the assessee for safe custody as the trustee for and on behalf of M/s. KPTCL. The ownership of the materials was always with M/s. KPTCL. The third portion of the contract is the civil portion of the contract, where the assesse was expected to use the material and with the help of labour lay foundation for erecting towers. It was a case of works contracts. The last....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... revisional authority was of the view that it is a composite contract and therefore he treated this contract as a works contract and levied tax under entry 23 of the Sixth Schedule. The Tribunal has set aside the said order. 10. A careful reading of the aforesaid para 3.5 makes it clear for convenience of operation and for payment of sales tax on supply portion, it is treated as a contract for supply. Therefore, the intention of the parties is a manifest coupled with the said clause. The other terms and the conduct of the parties disclose in terms of the bid, the assessee supplied the materials as per specifications and paid tax thereon and transferred title in the goods to M/s. KPTCL. Thus, KPTCL became the owner of the said materials. Th....