2018 (12) TMI 1356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the assessment order dated 29.03.2014, for the tax period 2010-11 to 2012-13 under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act ("the Act" for brevity), as arbitrary and illegal. Dr. T.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would question the validity of the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on the following grounds i.e., (1) since the petitioner entered into a composition scheme long prior to 14.09.2011, from which date the amended Section 4(7)(b) of the Act came into force, they are liable to be subjected to tax only at 4% for the entire duration of the work; and the respondents were not justified in levying tax at 5% relying on an amendment made subsequent ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....09.2011, has not been subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition; it is, therefore, not open to the petitioner to request this Court not to give the provision retrospective effect; as Section 4(7)(b) of the Act uses the words "total amount received or receivable", and since VAT collected by the petitioner from the contractee is included in the consideration received or receivable by them, the respondents were justified in levying tax on the total amount received or receivable, even if it includes the tax component also; and if the petitioner was not inclined to continue under the composition scheme, stipulated under Section 4(7)(b) of the Act, they could have resiled therefrom and could have chosen, instead, to subject themselves to tax ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd that the amended provisions should not be given retrospective application. By A.P. Ordinance No.9 of 2011, which was promulgated by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh on 16.11.2011 and was published in the A.P. Gazette on 16.11.2011, the amended Section 4(7)(b) of the Act, whereby the rate of tax was increased from 4% to 5%, came into force on and from 14.09.2011. Similarly by Act 12 of 2012, which replaced Ordinance 9 of 2011, to which the Governor of Andhra Pradesh had given his assent on 17.04.2012, and which was published in the A.P. Gazette on 20.04.2012, the amended Section 4(7)(b) of the Act, whereby the rate of tax was increased from 4% to 5%, was given retrospective effect from 14.09.2011. In the absence of any challenge to the cons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is assent to A.P. Act 21 of 2011 on 27.12.2011 and his assent was published in the A.P. Gazette on 29.12.2011. Thereby the afore-extracted Section 4(7)(b), in A.P. Ordinance No.7 of 2011, was made part of the Act. Section 4(7)(b) of the Act, as substituted by A.P. Ordinance No.7 of 2011 and A.P. Act 21 of 2011 prescribed the rate of tax as 4%. After A.P. Ordinance No.7 of 2011 was promulgated by the Governor on 14.09.2011, and was published in the A.P. Gazette on 15.09.2011, the rate of tax in Section 4(7)(b) was increased from 4% to 5% by A.P. Ordinance No.9 of 2011 which was promulgated by the Governor and was published in the A.P. Gazette on 16.11.2011. A.P. Act 12 of 2012 received the assent of the Governor on 17.04.2012, and was publis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the revenue may have been justified in contending that, since the total amount received or receivable by a dealer would include the tax levied on the total consideration, they were justified in levying tax on the total amount received or receivable which includes the tax component also. The Section, however, also stipulates that the total amount, received or receivable by the dealer, shall be towards execution of the contract. Since the tax which can be levied under Section 4(7)(b) of the Act is on the total amount received or receivable by the dealer towards execution of the works contract, it is only on the total value of the works contract executed by the dealer, could tax have been levied. While we agree with the submission of Dr. T.R....