TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 452
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rks on subcontract basis to the appellant- Company. The appellant submitted its returns duly declaring the purchases from the registered dealer, URD purchasers, claimed input tax on local purchases, offered the taxable turnover and submitted the tax deduction certificates for the assessment period 2011-2012. The assessment for the year 2011-12 was deemed to have been concluded under Section 38 (1) of the Act. Re-assessment proceedings were initiated and concluded by the competent authority passing re-assessment order. Demand notice was issued determining the taxable turnover, penalty and interest. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the appellant-Company filed appeal before the competent authority who verified the books of accounts and accepting the same, allowed the appeals. The Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-3, Bengaluru, initiated suo motu revision proceedings to set aside the order of the first appellate authority and restored the order of the reassessing authority and for this purpose notice of revision under Section 64 (1) of the Act was issued which was objected by the appellant-Company by filing objections to the said notice. The Addl. Commissioner of Commerc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HERS (2008 (64) KLJ 174). Further, the learned counsel would submit that the Addl. Commissioner failed to consider the revised return as well as rectified return filed by the assessee subsequent to filing of the original return in VAT 100. Non-consideration of these returns by the revisional authority has resulted in enhancing the tax liability by Rs. 3 crores which would adversely affect the rights of the appellant. Based on these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the order impugned herein deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Shri E.R. Indrakumar, appearing for respondent No.5 would contend that no notice was issued to respondent No.5 before making any observations and giving a finding as regards the forfeiture of amount of tax collected at the rate of 4% from the appellant-Company. The order of forfeiture, directing the assessing authority to redo the assessment would prejudice the rights of respondent No.5 and is contrary to the well settled legal principles of natural justice. No modification/ enhancement of tax can be made by the authorities without providing an opportunity of hearing to respondent N o.5 who is adversely affected by the order of the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Addl. Commissioner exercised the powers under Section 64 (1) of the Act to revise the said order. In order to analyze whether the powers exercised under Section 64 (1) of the Act is sustainable, it is appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and its effect. 9. Section 9-A of the Act contemplates for deduction of tax at source in case of works contract. The relevant sub Sections (1), (5), (10) and (11) of Section 9-A are excerpted hereunder: "(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act , the Central Government, or any State Government, or an industrial, commercial or trading undertaking of th e Central Government or of any State, or any such undertaking in joint sector or any other industrial , commercial or trading undertaking or any other person or body as may be notified by the Commissioner from time to time or a local authority or a statutory body, shall deduct out of the amounts payable by them to a dealer in respect of any works contract executed for them in the State, an amount equivalent to the tax payable by such dealer under the Act. (5) The authority making deduction under sub-section (1), shall send every month to the prescribed au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present case, the contractee-BHEL has deducted the tax at source and remitted the same relating to the main contractor/respondent No.5, not of the appellant-assessee herein. The set off is available only to the main contractor to whom VAT 156 certificate is issued. Sub Section (11) further clarifies that the burden of proving the tax on such works contract has been remitted and of establishing the exact quantum of tax so remitted s hall be on the dealer claiming the reduction of tax under sub Section (10). 13. In the present set of facts, it is the main contractor who can be construed as the dealer to claim the reduction of tax under sub Section (10). This is further clarified by Rule 44 (3) (f) which specifies that any authority or person deducting tax, having obtained Form VAT 156 or Form VAT 158 shall not either directly or through any other person transfer the same to another person. The order of the first appellate authority is contrary to these provisions which is apparently erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Since the required ingredients necessary for invoking Section 64 (1) of the Act being available, revisional authority was justified i....