9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, therefore, if under the bona fide belief that the contract was for sale of body and not works contract the tax has not been deducted under section 8D(1), penalty could not be levied under section 8D(6) of the Act, as there was no deliberate or wilful defiance on the part of the dealer. Thus the penalty proceedings are of quasi-criminal nature and in the absence of any deliberate and wilful defiance, penalty should not be levied. Revision dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 9-10-2007 - RAJES KUMAR , J. RAJES KUMAR J. Present six revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act ) are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated March 9, 2004 relating to the assessment years 1989-90, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Agra. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Agra vide order dated March 10, 2002 dismissed all the appeals. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Agra, dealer filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed all the appeals and set aside the penalty. The Tribunal held that the dealer had purchased the body and had not got it constructed over the chassis, under the works contract and, therefore, the provisions of section 8D(1) of the Act was not applicable. Heard Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Sri R.R. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the dealer-opposite party. The lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of V. K. Singhal v. State of U.P. reported in [1995] 97 STC 355; [1995] UPTC 337, thus, no tax was chargeable and, thus, in case, if the amount has not been deducted it cannot be said that there was defiance of section 8D(1) of the Act. He submitted that of section 3F of the Act which was re-enacted by Act No. 31 of 1995 with retrospective effect contemplates levy of tax on the value of the goods involved in the execution of works contract, the provisions of section 8D(6) of the Act cannot be invoked retrospectively. He further submitted that it was highly disputed and debatable whether the nature of contract was works contract or contract for sale and if under the bona fide belief that the contract was in the nature of sale and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
