Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

. 5. We heard Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Mr. R. Venkataramani, Mr. Kapoor, Mr. K.N. Bhatt and Mr. Darius Khambata, Counsel for the State of Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka and Maharashtra. We also heard Mr. P. P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General, who appeared on behalf of the Union of India.

. 6. Mr. Salve, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in his submission contended that after the 46th Amendment, Article 366(29A)(b) came to be introduced and in the light of the ratio laid down in a recent decision of this Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2013 (12) SCALE 77, the nature of contract as between the Petitioner and the various buyers of LIFTS was nothing but a ‘contract for works’ and consequently, whatever materials used in the performance of the contract could be taxed only based on the prescription contained in Article 366(29A)(b) and that the transaction could not be categorized as one of ‘Sale’ attracting payment of Sales Tax under the various State enactments, as well as the Central Sales Tax Act.

. 48. Mr. Darius Khambata, learned Advocate General for Maharashtra and Mr. K.N. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel for Karnataka actually conceded to the effect that the question posed for consideration has been fully answered in the decision in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra).

. 49. Mr. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General for Union of India contended that the Union of India has nothing to do with the issue as to whether it is a ‘Sale’ or ‘Works Contract’, inasmuch as erection of LIFT has been brought under the definition of ‘Works Contract’ for the purpose of levying service tax.