Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002

5 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED & ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

2013 INSC 65326 September 2013Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined whether agreements between a developer and flat purchasers constitute "works contracts" under Art.366(29‑A)(b) and whether the State can levy sales tax on the goods used in such contracts. It held that a construction agreement, even when coupled with a transfer of immovable property, remains

DELTA DISTILLERIES LIMITEDversusUNITED SPIRITS LIMITED & ANR.

2013 INSC 64923 September 2013Dismissed

Delta Distilleries supplied Indian Made Foreign Liquor to United Spirits under a contract that made the buyer responsible for sales tax. A dispute arose over a set‑off/refund claimed by Delta from the Sales Tax Department, which United Spirits argued reduced its tax burden. The arbitral tribunal allowed United Spirits

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSversusGREATSHIP (INDIA) LIMITED

2022 INSC 99120 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra challenged a Bombay High Court order that had set aside a tax assessment and demand notice issued to Greatship (India) Ltd. under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessee had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without f

EUROTEX INDUSTRIES AND EXPORTS LIMITED & ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2017 INSC 12858 May 2017Dismissed

The appellants, industrial units that had invested in backward areas of Maharashtra, claimed that a 2009 amendment to the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) Act retrospectively altered Section 93, limiting their VAT exemption to a proportion of turnover, thereby violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. T

VVF (INDIA) LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

2021 INSC 8183 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

VVF (India) Ltd., a manufacturer of oleo‑chemicals, made a protest payment of Rs 3.64 crore for tax and interest for AY 2013‑14 before an assessment order was passed. After the assessment order imposed a total demand of Rs 27.98 crore, the company filed an appeal but the appellate authority rejected it, stating that th

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search