SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Pat) 1135

PATNA HIGH COURT
Nagendra Rai and R.S.Garg JJ.
Larsen And Toubro Limited
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2740 of 2003 ;
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3827 of 2002 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 05, 2003

Headnote:

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. - Commercial Tax - Bihar Finance Act, 1981, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Sec. 21(1)(a)(i), Rule 13-A of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 - The court discussed the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, particularly focusing on sec. 21(1)(a)(i) and Rule 13-A of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983. The court highlighted the requirement for prescribed deductions in relation to labour charges and any other charges in works contracts, emphasizing the need for workable provisions to determine taxable turnover.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Larsen & Toubro Ltd., a registered dealer in commercial tax, secured a turn-key contract from M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The petitioner was assessed under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and disputed the demands made by the taxing officer, alleging that they were illegal and contrary to law and Supreme Court judgments. The petitioner contended that the demands were confiscatory and that the authority did not give proper opportunity of hearing. The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the assessment was done on sound principles of law and in compliance with the relevant rules and acts.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the provisions of sec. 21(1)(a)(i) and Rule 13-A of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 did not provide the required prescribed deductions in relation to labour charges and any other charges in works contracts, rendering the provisions unworkable. The court also criticized the assessing officer for passing orders in a hot haste and proceeding ex parte during the pendency of another case, and quashed the assessment orders.

Issues: The issues involved the legality of the demands made by the taxing officer, the adequacy of opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner, and the workability of the provisions of sec. 21(1)(a)(i) and Rule 13-A of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of sec. 21(1)(a)(i) and Rule 13-A of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 were unworkable due to the lack of prescribed deductions in relation to labour charges and any other charges in works contracts. The court also criticized the assessing officer for passing orders in a hot haste and proceeding ex parte during the pendency of another case.

Final Decision: The court allowed both petitions, quashed the assessment orders, and ruled that the liability of the dealer would continue after the provisions are made workable. The court also criticized the assessing officer for passing orders in a hot haste and proceeding ex parte during the pendency of another case.

Judgment

1. This order shall finally dispose of C.W.J.C. No. 2740 of 2003 ( Larsen & Toubro Ltd. V/s. State of Bihar) and C.W.J.C. No. 3327 of 2002 (M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. V/s. State of Bihar).

2. The petitioner, M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., is registered as a dealer in commercial tax at Begusarai Circle as a works contractor. The petitioner secured a turn-key contract of divisible nature from M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, New Delhi ("IOCL", for short) vide letter of acceptance dated April 28, 2000 followed by detailed contract agreement. The said contract agreement provides a separate Schedule for supply of goods with separate consideration for the same as well as another schedule relating to erection/installation including civil portion of work to be executed, as appended to the contract. After securing the contract the petitioners secured an exclusive registration on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Barauni, respondent No. 3. It is submitted by the petitioners that in response to the notice issued by respondent No. 3, they produced their books of accounts and other details to finalise the assessment for the period April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2001 under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is also submitted that in compliance to the notice issued by the respondent No. 3 they submitted various details and documents under their registered letter and thereafter also personally appeared before the said Deputy Commissioner on various dates and produced the required documents, and as alleged by the petitioners extended full co-operation to finalise, the assessment for the period under reference. According to them they were served with a notice of demand dated January 28, 2002 which was received by the petitioners on January 31, 2002. According to the petitioners, huge demands were made which were not only illegal but were contrary to law and were contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court. It is also submitted by them that demand of additional tax and penalty is not only confiscatory in its nature but is also bad because no follow up legislation to sec. 21(1) of the Bihar Finance Act has been enacted nor the Rules to make sec. 21(1) of the Bihar Finance Act workable have been made. According to the petitioners, the amount already paid by them towards the tax was depicting the correct tax amount and the demands made by the taxing officer after illegally assessing the petitioner were bad. According to them the respondents acted in a hot haste in issuing the order and did not give proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is also submitted by them that the order dated January 7, 2002 under which the petitioners have been assessed is patently illegal and the authority has not taken into consideration the inter-State sale and has also not given the benefit of the deductibles in a works contract. According to the petitioners, they have secured a turn-key contract for a sum of Rs. 435 crores. Out of these Rs. 15,22,50,000 are towards design and engineering portion of work vide Schedule of SP-1. Vide Schedule of SP-2 a sum of Rs. 271,10,27,000 is towards supply of goods specifically described for the price mentioned as per the contract. A sum of Rs. 148,67,23,000, vide Schedule of SP-3 is towards erection and installation, including contract as well as civil portion of work to be executed.

3. According to the petitioners, after entering into the contract they took up the work and thereafter for the said assessment period submitted their return giving their turnover details, including computation of gross turnover (GTO), taxable turnover (TTQ) and the tax amount as supported by various entries for the exemption claimed under the specific caption. According to them they are entitled to deduction under the head of sales tax, inter-State sales turnover, tax paid works and labour charges. According to them the authority did not appreciate the true import of taxable tur












































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top