TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in conditions? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Respondent was justified in relying on the decision of this Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s. Ciscon Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka in STA No. 100013/2015 dated 12.12.2015? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, even after effecting TDS on the RA Bills of the Appellant by the Main Contractor, can the set off be denied due to illegality committed by the Main Contractor as per Section 9-A of the Act read with Rule 44 of the KVAT Rules, 2005? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondent was justified in invoking powers of revision under section 64 of the KVAT Act when the Prescribed Authority has followed the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., (2008) 17 VST 1 (SC) that appellant has executed the works contract and M/s. Harsha Constructions v. Commercial Tax Officer., reported in (2007)10 VST 216 (SC) wherein exemption is provided for the deductions made on the subcontractor, which payment cannot be left unaccounted based on technical plea of TDS certificate not in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submits that the entire subcontract value is included in the turnover of the assessee. 5.1 Learned counsel further submits that the ownership of the goods used in the subcontract work remained with the assessee until the same were transferred in favour of HAL, and therefore, the turnover is that of the assessee and the TDS credit ought to have been given to it. It is submitted that the First Appellate Authority was justified in directing transfer of TDS from NPCC Ltd. to the account of the assessee. The order of the First Appellate Authority was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hence, the order of the Revisional Authority is unsustainable. 5.2 In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in JMC Constructions Private Limited v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 75 GSTR 264. 6. Sri Aditya Vikram Bhat, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that HAL entered into a contract with NPCC Ltd., and accordingly, TDS was deducted and Form VAT-156 was issued in favour of NPCC Ltd. It is submitted that Rule 44(3)(f) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to the account of the assessee against the output tax payable on the works contract. 9. The order of the First Appellate Authority was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue, and consequently, proceedings under Section 66 of the KVAT Act were initiated. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee submitted that NPCC Ltd., being a Public Sector Undertaking, was required to deduct tax at source under Section 9A of the KVAT Act and issue a certificate of deduction in Form VAT-156. It was further stated that, owing to the failure to comply with this requirement, the TDS credit could not be allowed in the hands of the assessee. The order of the First Appellate Authority was set aside as being contrary to Rule 44(3)(f) of the 2005 Rules, which prohibits the transfer of TDS credit from one person to another. 10. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate and held by the Revisional Authority, the issue relates to the transfer of TDS credit, wherein Form VAT-156 was issued in favour of NPCC Ltd., to the credit of the assessee. The assessee contended that NPCC Ltd., being a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India, was required to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. A similar issue was considered by this Court in CISCON Project Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Others in STA No. 100013/2015, dated 12.12.2017. Identical to the facts of the present case, the claim for transfer of TDS in Form VAT-156 from one person to another, which was permitted by the First Appellate Authority, was held to be contrary to Rule 44(3)(f) of the 2005 Rules, and the invocation of Section 64(1) of the Act was upheld. It was held that a subcontractor is not entitled to the benefit of set-off of TDS reflected in Form VAT-156 issued to the main contractor. Further, set-off can be allowed only to the person to whom Form VAT-156 is issued and not to any subcontractor executing part of the work allotted by the contractor. The Special Leave Petition against the said order of this Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) Diary No. 2246/2018, dated 23.07.2018. 16. There is no statutory basis for the finding and direction of the First Appellate Authority directing the transfer of TDS credit from NPCC to the appellant. Any direction issued by the First Appellate Authority must be in the exercise of its statutory jurisdiction. The direction in the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supra) is not germane to the facts of the present case. The directions in that case were rendered in the context of its peculiar facts. In the cited matter, the TDS certificate issued to the main contractor had neither been claimed as setoff nor as refund, whereas in the present case, the contractor declared the turnover and availed of the TDS credit. Furthermore, the implications of Rule 44(3)(f) of the 2005 Rules were not under consideration in JMC Constructions Private Limited (supra). 19. It is a settled position of law that, while interpreting a fiscal statute, the Court cannot re-write the provisions, either by addition or omission. The Court is required to give effect to the plain meaning of the provisions, unless ambiguity exists. When Rule 44(3)(f) of the 2005 Rules specifically bars the transfer of TDS credit reflected in Form VAT-156 from one person to another, no direction for such transfer can be permitted, irrespective of the reasons advanced. 20. We note that the Coordinate Bench, while rendering the judgment in JMC Constructions Private Limited (supra), did not consider the judgment of this Court in M/s. CISCON Project Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which directly deals with....