Quashed

M/S. Hyundai Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Dec 2014WP/10828/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order rejecting an application claiming the contract was not a works contract under MVAT Act. Court found the impugned order lacked factual scrutiny. Commissioner undertook to re-examine the matter and pass a fresh order within 4 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21 August 2014 quashed; application remitted to Commissioner for re-examination and fresh order within 4 weeks.

M/S. Hyundai Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs… — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/5

¶2

wp-10829-14.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.10828 OF 2014

¶5

… M/s.Hyundai Engineering India Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.P.C.Joshi with Mr.Piyush N. Shah for the Petitioner. Mr.A.B.Vagyani, G.P. with Mr.A.D.Kango, AGP for Respondent Nos 1 to 3.

¶7

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI &

¶8

A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 10 DECEMBER 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenge the order dated 21 August 2014 rejecting an Application under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (for short, `the Act').

¶11

The Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and claims to have been awarded a contract by the fourth Respondent to this Writ Petition. The Petitioner has sub-contracted the work under this contract in favour of the fifth Respondent.

1/5

Uday Kambli

2/5

wp-10829-14.doc

The Petitioner challenges the vires of section 31 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act 2002. But we find that it is unnecessary to express any opinion on this issue and for the purposes of the present Petition and the order that we intend to pass.

¶17

The Petitioner has extensively referred to terms and conditions of an Agreement dated 2 April 2014, copy of which is at Annexure-A. The Petitioner has also referred to a registration as non-resident dealer under the provisions of the Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Petitioner has also referred to terms of the sub-contract agreement dated 30 June 2014.

¶18

There are two sub-contractors and it is the case of the Petitioner that the entire works contract agreement was back to back assigned to two sub-contractors in entirety with due permission from the fourth Respondent, leaving no work except supervising both sub-contractors in regard to the quality of the work executed by them. According to the Petitioner, supervising does not involve any transfer of property in goods from the Petitioner to fourth Respondent during the execution of any works contract as contemplated under the scheme of the Act. Therefore the Petitioner

2/5

Uday Kambli

3/5

wp-10829-14.doc

relied upon the provisions of section 31(1)(b)(ii) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act 2002 to make an application to the Commissioner. They applied for issuance of the certificate, which would certify that the contract under reference is not a works contract and therefore no deduction of taxes at source is called for from the payment the fourth Respondent makes to the Petitioner.

¶24

It is such an application, which has been rejected by the order of 21 August 2014. That is challenged in this Writ Petition together with vires of the section itself.

¶25

Mr.Joshi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner raised various contentions and particularly with regard to validity and interpretation of the sub-section and clauses thereof. However, we clarify that it is not necessary to examine them nor the answer or reply thereto from the Respondents. Keeping that issue alive and open for being raised at an appropriate stage and in appropriate proceedings, we proceed ahead.

¶26

Upon perusal of the application that the Petitioner has

¶27

made and copy of which has been annexed to the Memo of this Writ Petition, at pages 104 and 105 of the Paper Book, we are of the

3/5

Uday Kambli

4/5

wp-10829-14.doc

opinion that the impugned order fails to make any reference to the transaction and the contract, the terms and conditions thereof and whether the Petitioner could be said to be executing any works under the works contract agreement as claimed by it. The only reason which has been assigned in the conclusion is that the agreement dated 2 April 2004 is a works contract. In other words, it involves works contract. However, for the purposes of recording a conclusion of this nature, it was necessary and imperative for the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, to have referred to not only the agreement dated 2 April 2014, but other agreements under which the works have been sub-contracted. The Petitioner's stand that it has not been executing any works contract under the relevant provisions and within the definition of the said term under the Act requires a proper and complete examination and scrutiny. That has not been admittedly done in passing this one line order.

¶33

In such circumstances, we called upon Mr.Vagyani, learned Government Pleader, to take instructions as to whether the Commissioner/Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Mumbai is ready and willing to examine the matter again and pass a fresh order in accordance with law without being influenced

4/5

Uday Kambli

5/5

wp-10829-14.doc

by any earlier conclusions.

¶39

Upon taking instructions, Mr.Vagyani informs the Court that the Commissioner is ready and willing to examine this issue again. He is also ready and willing to offer an opportunity to the Petitioner of being heard in person and after which he shall pass a fresh order uninfluenced by the earlier conclusions. He states that the same will be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶40

We accept this statement made by Mr.Vayagni, on instructions, as undertaking given to this Court. Based on the same, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 21 August 2014 and remit the Application made by the Petitioner, copy of which at page 104-105 of the Paper Book, for examination and scrutiny by the Commissioner again. The same shall be done accordingly and in terms of the undertaking recorded above. All contentions of both sides and in relation to validity of the section and contents of the application are kept open. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

¶41

(A.A. SAYED, J.)

¶42

( S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.)

¶43

5/5

¶44

Uday Kambli

M/S. Hyundai Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Hyundai Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thirumalai Chemicals Limited Vs the Union of India

M/S. Pukhraj Virchand Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Vat-Ii) Vs M/S.Ashok Leyland Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 6 (1) Vs M/S. Balkrishna Industries Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - 10, Vs M/S. Golgate Palmolive 9INDIA), Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax 18 Mumbai Vs Industrial Agencies Corporation