9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... work and labour and not a contract for sale and for transferring the case to any independent assessing authority for decision, ignoring the said order dated November 9, 1995, annexure 5. 2.. In the application, it has been averred, in short, as follows: The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, P.H.E.D., Jaipur, granted contract, annexures 1 and 2, to the petitioner for carrying out the construction work in respect of Bisalpur Water Supply Project. It is a turn-key project and substantially a works contract. By notification dated July 19, 1995 issued under rule 3, Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955, the jurisdiction of various assessment officers was defined. As the work assigned to the petitioner was purely under a works contract, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ST Act, 1994 has simply transferred the petitioners case from Commercial Taxes Officer, Works Contract and Leasing Tax Circle, Ajmer, to the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Ajmer, for administrative reasons, it does not contain any direction on merits of the case and the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Ajmer, was the assessing authority of the petitioner at the relevant time. It has also been averred that the petitioner has already filed appeals before the appellate authority, it cannot seek two remedies at the same time and, therefore, the present application is not maintainable and it deserves to be dismissed. 4.. On the stay application, order was passed by the Tribunal on September 2, 1996. Its operative part runs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Civil Appeal Nos. 11-34, 13 of 1984 filed by the State of Orissa. He further contended that the order dated November 9, 1995, annexure 5 of the Commissioner has wrongly been construed by the assessing authority as an order holding the contract, annexures 1 and 2, as a contract for sale and not for work and labour. He also contended that even assuming the contract to be a contract for sale of pipes, no sale took place during the assessment year 1989-90 as per terms of the contract and as such no tax accrued during this period. He lastly contended that the order of the Commissioner dated November 9, 1995, annexure 5, would also prejudice the appellate authority on merits of the case if it is not quashed. 6.. In reply, it was contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the respondents. It deserves to be confirmed. 8.. It is not necessary to quash the order dated November 9, 1995, annexure 5, of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. In this regard, it may simply be observed that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) would not be prejudiced in any way on the merits of the case by this order, annexure 5. This order will simply be taken as an order passed under section 41(4), RST Act, 1994 transferring the case from Commercial Taxes Officer, Works Contract and Leasing Tax Circle, Ajmer, to Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Ajmer. 9.. The abovequoted stay order passed by this Tribunal on September 2, 1996 is confirmed and it will continue till the disposal of the appeals f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
