TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 971
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had undertaken construction and sale of nine apartment complexes. The issue relates to the assessment year 2010-2011. Ext.P1 is a notice issued under Section 25 (1) of the KVAT Act. The main objection raised by the petitioner to Ext.P1 was in regard to the taxable turnover, which according to the respondents, should be based on the total purchase made by the petitioner during the assessment year. As per the annual return submitted by the petitioner, the turn over reported was .7,84,44,241.99 Rs. and the total purchase was shown as Rs.13,09,24,806/-. The proposal was to treat the purchase cost as the basis for assessment and to add 25% towards gross profit in terms of proviso to Rule 10 (2) (a) of the KVAT Rules. The petitioner filed an obje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xt.P6 order, without making any reference to the said contention, the application is rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is error apparent on the face of record insofar as the contention of the petitioner that no contract had been executed with reference to 306 apartments has not been considered by the authority and therefore, Ext.P6 is liable to be set aside and the matter requires fresh consideration. 4. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand while supporting the stand taken in Ext.P6, submitted that when the assessing officer had already taken a decision based on the value of goods purchased as the basis for assessment in terms of proviso to Rule 10 (2) (a) of the KVAT Rules, there is no rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thing which appears to be so ex facie and it is incapable of argument of debate. It, therefore, follows that a decision on a debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectifications." 5. Having regard to the respective contentions of the parties, the question to be considered is whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record to enable the officer concerned to reconsider the matter. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that as far as the assessment is concerned, the officer proceeded on the basis that the purchase value of the material has to be considered in terms of proviso to Rule 10 (2) (a) of the KVAT Rules. But in a case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....element. Works contracts also include building contracts and therefore without any fear of contradiction it can be stated that building contracts are species of the works contract." "115. It may, however, be clarified that activity of construction undertaken by the developer would be works contract only from the stage the developer enters into a contract with the flat purchaser. The value addition made to the goods transferred after the agreement is entered into with the flat purchaser can only be made chargeable to tax by the State Government." "117. The submission of Mr.K.N.Bhat that the view in Raheja Development that when a completed building is sold, there is no work contract and, therefore, no liability to tax is not correct stateme....