Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P.LUCKNOW versus S/S UNIVERSITY ENGINEERING BUILDING DEPARTMENT, ALIGARH

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P.Lucknow v. S/S University Engineering Building Department, Aligarh - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 1756 of 1998 [2005] RD-AH 5365 (8 November 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no.55

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(1756) of 1998

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(1804) of 1998

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow.       Applicant

Versus

M/S University Engineering Building Department, Aligarh.        Opp.party

�?��?��?��?��?�

Hon�??ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as �??Act�??) are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 21st May, 1998 relating to the assessment years, 1986-87 and 1988-89.

Dealer-opposite party (hereinafter referred to as �??dealer�??) is one of the Engineering Building Department of Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and for the purposes of construction-engaged contractor. As per the agreement, cement was supplied by the dealer to the contractor and while making the payment; the value of the cement was deducted. The cement, which was supplied to the contractor was imported from outside the State of U.P. Assessing authority levied the tax on the cement supplied to the contractor treating it as sale. First appellate authority rejected the appeal. Tribunal, by the impugned order, allowed the appeal and held that the cement supplied to the contractor is not sale inasmuch as the title of the goods have not been transferred to the contractor.

Heard learned Standing Counsel. No one appears on behalf of the dealer inspite the case being called twice in the revised list.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the admitted fact of the case is that the cement imported from outside the State of U. P. has been supplied to the contractor and while making the payments to the contractors, the value of the cement had been deducted. He submitted that on these facts the Apex Court in the case of N.M. Goel & Co. Versus CST reported in 1990 UPTC 865 and recent decision in the case of Karya Palak Engineer Versus Rajasthan Taxation Board, Ajmer reported in 2004 UPTC 1178 held the supply of material to the contractor as a sale. He submitted that the aforesaid two decisions have been followed in the case of CTT Versus M/S Executive Engineer, Rampur reported in 2005 UPTC 370.

In my opinion, issue involved in the present revisions are squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of N.M. Goel & Co. Versus CST (supra), Karya Palak Engineer Versus Rajasthan Taxation Board, Ajmer, (supra) and CTT Versus M/S Executive Engineer, Rampur. In all the aforesaid cases, material supplied to the contractor and while making the payment to the contractor, the value of the material has been deducted has held as a sale.

In the result, both the revisions are allowed in part. Order of the Tribunal is set aside.

Dated.08.11.2005.

VS.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.