High Court of Judicature at Bombay
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & R.D. DHANUKA
Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry & Others
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Others
WRIT PETITION NO.2022 OF 2007 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.598 OF 2007 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.280 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NOS.2568 OF 2007, 1725, 1726, 2089, 2197, 1152, 1864 OF 2011 & 680 OF 2012
Decided on: 10-04-2012
The Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, as amended, is constitutionally valid. The amendment to Section 2(24) does not transgress the limitations on the legislative power of the State Legislature. The State Legislature has the power to tax the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract, including an agreement for the building and construction of immovable property. Rule 58(1A) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, which provides for the measure of the tax, is also valid. The Trade Circular dated 7 February 2007 is only meant for the guidance of the trade and cannot override a legislative provision or an exercise in the nature of subordinate legislation. The Notification dated 9 July 2010, which provides for a composition scheme, is also valid. The challenge to the Constitutional validity of the composition scheme is dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are builders and developers, challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 2(24) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, as amended, Rule 58(1A) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, a Trade Circular dated 7 February 2007, and a Notification dated 9 July 2010. The petitioners contended that the amendments to Section 2(24) were beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and that the provisions of Rule 58(1A) and the Trade Circular were arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners also challenged the constitutional validity of the composition scheme provided for in the Notification dated 9 July 2010.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the amendment to Section 2(24) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature and that the provisions of Rule 58(1A) and the Trade Circular were not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the composition scheme provided for in the Notification dated 9 July 2010 was valid.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment to Section 2(24) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature? 2. Whether the provisions of Rule 58(1A) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, and the Trade Circular dated 7 February 2007 were arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the composition scheme provided for in the Notification dated 9 July 2010 was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The amendment to Section 2(24) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature because it did not transgress the limitations imposed by Article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution. The State Legislature has the power to tax the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract, including an agreement for the building and construction of immovable property. 2. The provisions of Rule 58(1A) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, and the Trade Circular dated 7 February 2007 were not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because they were not unreasonable or discriminatory. 3. The composition scheme provided for in the Notification dated 9 July 2010 was valid because it was not ex facie arbitrary and extraneous so as to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions.
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
Rule in Writ Petition Nos.2089 of 2011 and 680 of 2012. Respondents waive service. By consent all the petitions have been taken up for final hearing since common questions are involved.
The nature of the challenge
2. In this batch of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution there is a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 2(24) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 as amended initially by Maharashtra Act XXXII of 2006 and thereafter by Maharashtra Act XXV of 2007 on the ground that the amendments transgress the limitations contained in Article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution. The challenge of the petitioners is that by amending the provisions of Section 2(24) the State Legislature has brought within the ambit and purview of the expression "sale", an agreement for the building and construction of immovable property which is not a works contract. Consequently, the legislative competence of the State Legislature is questioned on the ground that the Legislature by and as a result of the amendment has sought to impose a tax on a transaction which does not involve a sale of goods within the meaning of Entry 54 of the State List to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and has hence transgressed the limitations on its legislative power under Article 246(3) of the Constitution. There is also a challenge in consequence to the provisions of Rule 58(1A) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 which were introduced by a State Notification dated 1 June 2009. The batch of petitions also involves a challenge to a Circular dated 7 February 2007 issued by the State Government purporting to clarify the scope of the amendment. The petitioners also seek to question a Notification dated 9 July 2010 issued by the State Government under the Act notifying a composition scheme and the legitimacy of certain notices which have been issued by the State Tax Authorities. Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and the Rules
3. The Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, as it was originally enacted, defined the expression "sale" in Clause (24) of Section 2 as follows:
"(24) "sale" means a sale of goods made within the State for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration but does not include a mortgage, hypothecation, charge or pledge; and the words "sell", "buy" and "purchase" with all their grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall be construed accordingly."
Clause (b) of the Explanation to the Section defined what would be a sale for the purpose of the clause and brought in its ambit the following transactions:
"(b) (i) the transfer of property in any goods, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
(ii) the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of' a works contract;
(iii) a delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of payment by instalments;
(iv) the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
(v) the supply of goods by any association or body of persons incorporated or not to a member thereof or other valuable consideration;
(vi) the supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service is made or given for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration."
With effect from 20 June 2006 the provisions of Explanation (b)(ii) to Section 2(24) were amended by the insertion of the following words after the words "works contract":-
"namely, an agreement for carrying out for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration the building, construction, manufacture, processing, fabrication, erection, installation, fitting out, improvement, modification, repair or
State of A.P. Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (2008) 9 SCC 191
Jayantilal Investments Vs. Madhuvihar Coop. Housing Society (2007) 9 SCC 220
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 1
K. Raheja Development Corporation Vs. State of Karnataka (2005) 5 SCC 162.
Kartar Singh Bhadana Vs. Hari Singh Nalwa (2001) 4 SCC 661
Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. Vs. State of A.P. (2000) 6 SCC 579
Veena Hasmukh Jain Vs. State of Maharashtra (1999) 5 SCC 725
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahavir Lalchand Rathod 1992(2) Bom.C.R. 1
Builders Association of India Vs. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 645
Union of India Vs. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (1984) 1 SCC 467.
Ram Singh & Sons Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1979) 1 SCC 487
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Purshottam Premji 1970 (2) SCC 287
State of Madras Vs. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. AIR 1958 SC 560
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.