High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner Trade Tax Lucknow v. S/S Subhal Construction - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1916 of 2004  RD-AH 13808 (19 August 2006)
Court no. 43
Trade Tax Revision no. 1916 Of 2004.
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ... Revisionist.
M/S Subhal Construction, Mathura. ... Opp. Party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
By the impugned order, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the First Appellate Authority.
Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the "Dealer") was a Civil Contractor and had executed the works contract awarded by the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and received total payment of Rs.23,95,218.26. Dealer claimed that out of the aforesaid amount Steel of Rs.96,481/- was provided by the Contractee and the material used was to the extent of Rs.14,70,821/- and labour charges was Rs.8,27,915.70. Out of the aforesaid purchases at Rs.14,70,821/-, purchase for Rs.1,60,580/- related to the Gitti, Badarpur purchased from unregistered dealer and in respect of the purchases made from registered dealer, purchase vouchers were produced before the Assessing Authority. The Assessing Authority observed that the claim of labour charges was excessive and allowed only to the extent of 20%. However, on the basis of best judgment assessment, the turnover at Rs.7,80,000/- was estimated. The First Appellate Authority held that in view of Circular, benefit of labour charges to the extent of 30% should be allowed and accordingly the claim of labour charges to the extent of Rs.1,09,350/- was disallowed treated as the supply of material. Since the tax on the purchases made from unregistered dealer could not be levied in the appellate order dated 08.9.1999, the First Appellate Authority passed the order under Section 22 of the Act and levied tax on the purchases of Gitti from unregistered dealer also. In this way, tax was levied on the total turnover of Rs.2,63,930/-, which has been confirmed by the Tribunal. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the claim of exemption on the purchases made by the dealer was allowed, while the purchase vouchers could not be produced. In my view, argument of learned Standing Counsel is misplaced. The perusal of assessment order shows that the purchase vouchers alongwith the list were produced before the Assessing Authority, on which, no comment has been made. In the circumstances, I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.
In the result, revision fails, and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.