1996 (7) TMI 526 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of order rejecting claim for exemption on washable apron under composition scheme.
2. Interpretation of civil works under U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
3. Application of Commissioner's circular in determining eligibility for composition scheme.
4. Review of notification and scheme regarding civil works.
5. Assessment of construction of washable apron as a civil contract.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash an order rejecting their claim for exemption on a washable apron under the composition scheme. The petitioner argued that the construction of the washable apron constituted a civil contract, as it involved the preparation of a cement concrete floor between railway lines at platforms. The State Government's composition scheme was invoked, but the claim related to the washable apron construction was rejected, leading to the dispute for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The petitioner contended that the concerned authority did not properly construe the contract, citing a Commissioner's circular that specified qualifying works under the scheme as exhaustive, not illustrative (para 3-5).

The High Court examined the notification under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, and the composition scheme under section 7-D, which both listed civil works like construction of buildings, bridges, roads, etc. The Court noted that the descriptions of civil work in both the notification and the scheme used terms like "like" and "JAISE," indicating an illustrative rather than exhaustive list. The Court emphasized that the word "like" denoted similarity, not identity, allowing for works of a similar nature to qualify under the scheme. The Court found that the construction of the washable apron, as detailed by the petitioner, fell within the ambit of civil works under the scheme (para 6-9).

Consequently, the Court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's claim on the construction of the washable apron, ruling that it was covered under the composition scheme. The assessing authority was directed to take necessary action within three weeks upon receipt of the order. If the petitioner submitted a certified copy of the order within two weeks, assessment proceedings for the relevant years would not proceed. The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted a certified copy of the order (para 9-13).