2016 (12) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....05 to March 2006. 2. We have heard Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for petitioner. 3. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner was that, since various items for the works contract, viz., bitumen, sand and jelly, etc., were used for the execution of works contract. The amount of works contract would fall in the residuary category for tax at 12.5% since all such items are already utilized for execution of the works contract. He submitted that, so far as steel material is concerned, the First Appellate Authority assessed in the ratio of 32.5%. But for the rest of the items, duty was held to be chargeable a t 12.5%. The Tribunal found that the amendment inserted is with effect from 1.4.2006 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der Karnataka Value Added Tax. The ACAR by its order dated 2.8.2006 clarified the same. Subsequently, on further clarification sought for by the appellant, the ACAR by its order dated 7.12.2006 further clarified that if the iron and steel is used in the same form in the course of execution of the works contract, it is liable to tax at 4% as per Section 4(1)(c) of the Act. However, the Commissioner feels that clarification made by the ACAR is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, insofar as clarification regarding the rate of tax on works contract prior to 31.3.2006. Accordingly issued notice and reviewed the order passed by the ACAR. 10. Section 3(1) of the Act provides for levy of tax on every sale of goods. Section 4 prescribes t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... State of Karnataka (2010 (68) Kar.L.J.668) (HC)(DB) , disposed of on 12.3.2010 and contended that the amendment is only a prospective operation and cannot be claimed retrospectively. Admittedly, prior to 1.4.2006 insertion of clause (c) to Section 4(1), the rate o f tax was not prescribed in respect of transfer of the property in goods (whether as goods or in any other form) involved in the execution of works contract. Hence, the tax has to be levied as per Section 3(1) of the Act. The sale under the works contract is a deemed sale of transfer of the goods alone and it is not different from the normal sale. Hence, the tax has to be levied on the price of the goods and material used in the works contract as if there was a sale of goods and....