2018 (2) TMI 370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the execution of works contract and is a registered dealer and an assessee under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter, referred to as the "Act"). That the respondent had executed certain civil works contract and dispute arose in respect of the Assessment Year 2003-2004. The assessment was completed for the said assessment year and the assessing officer levied tax of Rs. 1,23,11,149/-. The assessing authority determined the turnover relating to sales of "Iron and Steel" employed in the works contracts by holding that they do not lose their identity and therefore, the tax turnovers was at the rate of 4%. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga suo-motu reviewed the said assessment O....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... said 'Iron and Steel' was used in conglomeration with other goods?. (c) Whether the finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein, there is a contract for the sale of civil work and there was no predominant intention to sell 'Iron and Steel' as 'Iron and Steel'?. (d) Whether the word "Sale" includes a 'sale inheres' from the transaction as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.M. Goyal's case and as well as in S.T.R.P.Nos.12/2006, 16/2006 and 44/2004?   (e) Whether the Tribunal is justified in following the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA (VS) UNION OF INDIA' reported in 73 STC 370 it was only for the purpose of determining the value of goods....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....brings to our notice that the controversy is no longer res-integra and has been given a quietus by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. B. Narasamma vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka and Another reported in [(2016) 96 VST 357 (SC)] (Smt. B. Narasamma). He would submit that placing reliance on two earlier judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Builders Association of India and Others vs. Union of India & Others reported in [(1989) 73 STC 370 (SC)] and Gannnon Dunkerly & Co., vs. State of Rajastan reported in [( 1993) 88 STC 204 (SC)] , it has been held that the works contracts that are liable to be taxed after the Forty-sixth Constitution Amendment are subject to the drill of Article 286(3) of the Constitution re....