Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.72 seconds)The Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004
The Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005
Section 5 in The Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 [Entire Act]
Section 84 in The Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 [Entire Act]
State Of A.P. & Ors vs Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. & Ors on 26 August, 2008
14. Per contra, ASG appearing for the respondent argued that the
petitioner could not draw any sustenance from the judgment of the Apex
Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Larsen & Toubro (supra) which was
a case where the Supreme Court examined the provisions of the VAT Act
in Andhra Pradesh. He argued that VAT being State subject, each State had
its own separate laws and the validity of the legal provisions of DVAT and
DVAT Rules could not be tested while contrasting these provisions with the
State of A.P. He also tried to distinguish the aforesaid case by submitting
that it was not in dispute that under the contract, Larsen & Toubro, with the
consent of the contractee, was permitted to assign part of contract work to
the sub-contractors. The overall work was done under the supervision of the
consultant nominated by the contractee. The sub-contractors were registered
dealers. The materials were brought to site. They remained the property of
W.P.(C) 1907 OF 2012 & connected matters. Page 18 of 30
the sub-contractors. The site was occupied by the sub contractors. The Apex
Court noted at more than one place that it was not in dispute that the sub-
contractors were registered dealers. In the present case the petitioner had not
placed the copies of contracts with the sub-contractors before the assessing
officers. Even as per the list of sub-contractors filed by the petitioner with
the Writ Petition No. 1907/2012 shows that out of 96 sub-contractors, 38 are
unregistered.