Advocates:
SHIVAJI M. JADHAVNISHANT RAMAKANTRAO KATNESHWARKAR

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8690 OF 2013

RAJENDER RAMCHANDER AGARWAL

Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1.

None has appeared on behalf of the appellant at the time when

the appeal is taken up for final hearing. On the last two

occasions also, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant.

2.

The short question which is posed for consideration in this

appeal is “whether an agreement for building and construction of an

immovable property can be said to be sale” under the provisions of

Section 2(24) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (‘2002

Act’) and whether the same can be said to be a works contract and

liable to be taxed under the 2002 Act?

3.

Mr. Rahul Chitnis, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent-State of Maharashtra, has drawn our attention to the

decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited and

Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2014) 1 SCC 708 and

has submitted that the aforesaid issue is squarely covered against

the appellant.

Digitally signed by R

Natarajan

Date: 2022.07.29

16:55:00 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

4.

In that view of the matter, we dispose of the present Appeal

in terms of the binding decision of this Court in the case of

Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra).

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

.......................... J.

(M.R. SHAH)

.......................... J.

(B.V. NAGARATHNA)

New Delhi;

July 26, 2022.

3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8699 OF 2013

M/S BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA

Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8698 OF 2013

O R D E R

1.

We have heard Mr. S. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the appellant(s) and Mr. Rahul Chitnis, learned

counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of

Maharashtra.

2.

The issue involved in the present appeals is squarely covered

by the decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro

Limited and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2014) 1

SCC 708. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is

not in a position to point out any contrary decision.

3.

In that view of the matter, we dispose of the present Appeals

in terms of the binding decision of this Court in the case of

Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra).

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

.......................... J.

(M.R. SHAH)

.......................... J.

(B.V. NAGARATHNA)

New Delhi;

July 26, 2022.

4

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8688 OF 2013

DAMASK INFRACON PVT. LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS

STARLIGHT HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS

Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1.

The issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered

by the decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro

Limited and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2014) 1

SCC 708.

2.

None has pointed out any contrary decision to the decision of

this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited (supra).

2.

In that view of the matter and in view of the order passed in

other cognate appeals, we dispose of the present Appeal in terms of

the binding decision of this Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro

Limited (supra).

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

.......................... J.

(M.R. SHAH)

.......................... J.

(B.V. NAGARATHNA)

New Delhi;

July 26, 2022.

5

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.11 SECTION III

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 869