2021 (11) TMI 165

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, 'the VAT Act'), for the period from November, 2007 to October, 2008 has been revised. 2. The petitioner contends that during the above said period, it was executing various works relating to irrigation projects and also construction of power house for the State Government and its agencies; that the works so executed by the petitioner are classifiable as works contract; and that the petitioner had declared the same in the monthly returns filed with the concerned authority. 3. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the contracts awarded to it by the respective agencies of the State Government also specified the approved vendors from whom the petitioner is required to purchase the goods for be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petitioner, and a 'local' sale by the petitioner in favour of its contractees, is contrary to the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the CST Act'); and the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent subjecting the purchases made by the petitioner in the course of inter-State trade to tax under the provisions of Section 4(7)(g) of the VAT Act, is without authority of law. 5. A counter-affidavit on behalf of the 1st respondent is filed. 6. By the said counter-affidavit filed, the respondents claimed that though Clause 3.1.1 of the contract specifies that the goods are nonstandard and tailor made pursuant to specific requirement of the contractee; since, the movement of such goods from other States to the State of AP....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, learned Special Standing Counsel has fairly stated that the issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra. 9. Learned Special Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, would submit that, in the above said judgment, this Court, having regard to the provisions of each of the contract, was pleased to set aside the assessment/revisional order and remitted the same back to the concerned authority to pass orders afresh in accordance with law laid down therein, and therefore, even in the present case, the matter may be remitted back to the revisional authority to pass orders afresh, in the light of the law laid down by this Court in M/s.LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED's case(supra). 10. Having regard t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ansaction and has no connection whatsoever with the sales/deemed sales affected by the petitioner in the State of AP. 13. In the facts of the present case, no such material has been placed on record by the 3rd respondent while revising the order of assessment denying the claim of the petitioner that the subject transactions are covered under Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the CST Act. Further, no reasons are also assigned by the 3rd respondent for deviating from the order of the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in petitioner's own case in T.A.No.138 of 2009 in respect of similar such transactions for the period from April, 2005 to October, 2007, and on the other hand, no cogent reasons are given for choosing to follow the decisions rendered i....