2022 (9) TMI 1273 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Works contract - inter-state trade - Benefit u/s 3F(2)(b) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act - contract in question was individual in nature or not? - whether the value of goods received by the assessee from its manufacturing unit situated at Vadodara outside U.P. to the State of U.P. in pursuance of contract entered by the assessee with Bharat Petroleum Corporation is covered by Section 3 of Central Sales Tax Act and is deductible from the net taxable turn over? - HELD THAT - The U.P. Trade Tax Act not only covers the field of levies on sale and purchase of the goods in U.P. but also of transfer of rights to use any goods which has been covered by definition of sale. Section 3-F of the Act of 1948 imposes liability upon every dealer to pay tax on the net turn over of transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of work contract. Sub-section (2) of Section 3-F of the Act provides certain deduction in calculating net turn over for the purpose of charging tax under Section 3-F of the Act. From the reading of sub-section (2) of Section 3-F, it is clear that every dealer who is involved in execution of work contract, but the amount representing the sale value of the goods which are covered by Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sale Tax Act are deductible from the said turn over in determining the tax liability. In the present case, the assessee has an office in U.P. and has a manufacturing unit outside the State of U.P. The work contract was to be executed in U.P. and the goods have been received from outside the State after manufacturing was done by the dealer at its plant at Vadodara, thus, the goods received in the execution of work contract has resulted in movement of goods from one State to another attracting Section 3 of the Central Sales Act and thus assessee is liable for the benefit under Section 3(F)(2)(b) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The goods received by the assessee in U.P. after the same having been manufactured at its site at Vadodara and consumed for execution of work contract would amount to sale of goods in the course of inter-state trade or commerce which is covered under Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act and the value of such goods is therefore liable to be deducted under Section 3(F) (2)(b) of the 1948 Act from the net turn over of the assessee. The matter is no more res integra and co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case SANTOSH AND COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX 1999 (7) TMI 670 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, UP., LUCKNOW VERSUS DHARMEX PVT. LTD. 2008 (12) TMI 689 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, UP., LUCKNOW VERSUS ADVANCE SPECTRA TEC (P) LTD. 2010 (7) TMI 920 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT had held that where the assessee dealer had brought goods in and consumed them in U.P. in execution of work contract, it would be a case of inter-state trade on which no tax is chargeable in U.P. There is no error in the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal partly allowing the appeal of the assessee. The question raised in the revision is answered accordingly, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue - Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 3(F)(2)(b) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act in relation to a specific contract.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a revision under Section 58 of the Value Added Tax Act, 2005, challenging a decision by the Commercial Tax Tribunal. The case involves a registered dealer who entered into a contract with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for the supply and installation of electronic PD metering assembly systems. The dispute arose when the assessing authority imposed a tax liability on the dealer for allegedly bringing raw material into the State of U.P. The Tribunal partially allowed the dealer's appeal, prompting the revenue to file a revision. The key issue for consideration was whether the Tribunal was justified in granting the benefit under Section 3(F)(2)(b) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, given the individual nature of the contract.

The revenue contended that the contract was individual in nature, and as per the assessing authority's findings, raw material was brought into the state, precluding the benefit under Section 3(F)(2)(b). On the other hand, the dealer argued that the goods were manufactured at its factory outside U.P. and transferred to the installation site without modifications, making it eligible for the benefit. The dealer relied on a precedent to support its position.

Upon deliberation, the court examined the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. It noted that the Act covers the transfer of property in goods involved in work contracts, with deductions provided for certain goods covered by the Central Sales Tax Act. The court determined that in this case, the goods were received by the dealer from its manufacturing unit outside U.P. for execution of the contract, constituting inter-state trade under the Central Sales Tax Act. Citing previous decisions, the court concluded that the dealer was entitled to the benefit under Section 3(F)(2)(b) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

In light of the above analysis, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the revenue's revision and ruling in favor of the dealer. The judgment underscores the application of relevant tax laws to specific contractual arrangements, emphasizing the interplay between state and inter-state transactions in determining tax liabilities.