9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April, 1972, to 31st March, 1973. The petitioner did not file any return for the first and second quarters but it filed returns for the third and fourth quarters under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. In the assessment proceedings before the Sales Tax Officer, the petitioner showed sales of Rs. 2,10,416.62. The petitioner also disclosed that he received Rs. 2,36,100.44 as labour charges. The labour charges were said to have been received by the petitioner on the basis that the transactions relating to them were not contracts of sale of goods but contracts for work and labour. The Sales Tax Officer in his order dated 14th June, 1976, did not accept that any of the contracts entered into by the petitioner with the Bhilai Steel Plant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that the Deputy Commissioner accepted the petitioner's contention partly and he held that the contracts relating to the labour charges to the extent of Rs. 90,000 were contracts for work and labour. The Deputy Commissioner examined all the contracts. He found that in certain of the contracts the material was supplied by the Bhilai Steel Plant to the petitioner for fabrication free of cost and in certain other cases it was supplied on cost recovery basis. The Deputy Commissioner held that in those cases where the material was supplied free of cost the contract was purely for work and labour; whereas in those cases, where the material was supplied on cost recovery basis, the fabricated goods were really sold by the petitioner to the Bh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar [1975] 35 STC 46 (FB). 5.. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that he should also be permitted to produce the declarations and claim reduced rate of tax in respect of the turnover which was shown as labour charges but which was held to be turnover of sales by the Deputy Commissioner. No benefit of concessional rate was claimed by the petitioner in respect of these transactions in the assessment proceedings or before the Deputy Commissioner. We, therefore, are unable to accept the petitioner's contention at this last stage. 6.. It was lastly contended that the amount of penalty under section 17(3) should be reconsidered b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
