High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
On Behalf Of : M/S Siddartha Constructions v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 62 of 2007  RD-AH 2559 (15 February 2007)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.62 OF 2007
M/s Siddharatha Construction, Kanpur. ....Applicant
Commissioner of Trade Tax. .Opp.party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 10.11.2006 relating to the assessment year 1997-98.
Applicant claimed to be electrical contractor and applied under the compounding scheme under section 7-D of the Act. Applicant claimed to have executed electrical contracts. Admittedly, applicant had purchased goods against Form C for Rs.28,73,603.56p. , which have been used in the execution of works contract. Claim of the applicant is that in respect of those contracts where the goods purchased against Form C have been used is liable to tax @ 3% and the payment received in respect of other contracts were liable to tax @ 1%. Assessing authority had accepted the claim of the applicant under the compounding scheme but had demanded the tax @ 3% on the entire contract in view of clause (2) of the scheme, inasmuch as the assessing authority was of the view that the applicant had used the goods purchased against Form C. View of the assessing authority has been upheld upto the stage of Tribunal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
With the consent of both the parties, present revision is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
Similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Trade Tax Revision No.912 of 1999, The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow Vs. S/S K. Electric Works, Kanpur decided on 11.10.2006 in which after considering the clause (2) and (5) of the compounding scheme, this Court held as follows:
"In my opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be correct. In Clause (2) of the Compounding Scheme, the word contract (lafonk) has only been used and not the contracts (lafonkvks) as used in Clause (5). In the Compounding Scheme, the word contract and contracts have been separately used where ever the State Government desired to use, thus, a separate meaning of both the words, should be given. In Clause (2), the word contract (lafonk) has been used, therefore, the tax @ 3% is to be calculated, on the contract, in which Form -C and Form 31 were used and not in respect of other contracts in which Form 31 and Form-C have not been used. If the intent of the State Government would be to calculate, tax @ 3% on the amount of all the contracts in clause (2) the word would be the contracts (lafonkvkasa) and not the contract (lafonk), therefore, I do not find any error in the view taken by the Tribunal in this regard. However, I am of the view that the claim of the dealer that it had used Form-31 and Form-C in respect of one contract against which, payment of Rs.4,43,912/- was issued, has not been examined by any of the authorities, therefore, before allowing the claim, it is necessary to examine this aspect of the matter. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate that the matter may be sent back to the Assessing Officer to examine the claim whether Form-31 and Form-C were used in the execution of only one works contract and accordingly determine the amount of composition. Since the matter is quite old, the Assessing Authority is directed to pass appropriate order expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the Certified copy of the order, which the petitioner undertakes to file within one month. From today
In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal dated 14.7.1999 is set aside and the mater is remanded back to the Assessing Authority to pass appropriate order in accordance to law.
Present revision is being decided in terms of the decision in the aforesaid case. Assessing authority is directed to pass appropriate order afresh in terms of the order of this Court passéd in Trade Tax Revision No.912 of 1999, The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow Vs. S/S K. Electric Works, Kanpur.
In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to pass appropriate order in terms of the directions given in Trade Tax Revision No.912 of 1999, The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow Vs. S/S K. Electric Works, Kanpur, decided on 11.10.2006.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.