2026 (3) TMI 1059

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....E K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri. T. Suryanarayan, learned Senior counsel for Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Aditya Vikram Bhat, learned AGA for respondent in all these appeals. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have advanced common submissions, and reliance has been placed on common documents. Hence, we proceed to dispose of these appeals by a common order. 3. The facts in STA No.3/2025 are referred to for the sake of convenience. 4. The appellant is a joint venture between M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (for short, 'L&T') and M/s. Bharat Rail Automations Pvt. Ltd. (for short, 'BRAPL') (collectively referred to as the 'JV partners'). The joint venture is engaged in the business of executing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he subcontractors. However, upon consideration of the submissions made by the appellant, the Suo Motu Revisional Authority dropped the revisional proceedings and allowed full exemption of the turnover, as claimed by the appellant in respect of the subcontracted work. 4.5 Thereafter, proceedings under Section 64 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'KVAT Act') were initiated on the premise that the reassessment orders as well as the suo motu revisional orders passed by the Joint Commissioner were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The order passed under Section 64 of the KVAT Act is impugned in the present appeal. 5. The appeals raise the following substantial questions of law: In STA ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... IN STA No.3/2025: "(i) the Respondent's exercise of jurisdiction under section 64 of the KVAT Act to revise the Joint Commissioner's order dated 19.07.2023 on the ground that the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, is valid and legal? (ii) the Respondent's exercise of jurisdiction under section 64 of the KVAT Act to revise the FAA by re-appraising the same evidence and thereby substituting his opinion over the opinion of FAA, is valid and legal? (iii) the Respondent was right in directing disallowance of the exemption of the subcontractor's turnover on the basis that the Appellant had not complied with the conditions specified in Rule 3(2)(i-1), by ignoring that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing the same evidence and thereby substituting his opinion over the opinion of FAA, is valid and legal? (iv) the Respondent was right in directing disallowance of the exemption of the subcontractor's turnover on the basis that the Appellant had not complied with the conditions specified in Rule 3(2)(i-1), by ignoring that the Appellant was not required to comply with the said rule since it had claimed exemption as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Larsen & Toubro (supra) and Hon'ble Madras High Court in Larson & Toubro Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner (CT) and The State of Tamil Nadu (supra)? (v) the Respondent was right in directing the Assessin....