9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding counsel for the State. This revision has been filed by the assessee against an order of the Tribunal dated January 16, 2009 for the assessment year 1991-92. The questions of law referred to are as under: "(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in denying the benefit of deduction under section 3F(2)(b)(i) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act to the applicant, by not treating the transaction to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... truing the judgment of PNC construction and treating the deemed sale of bitumen and rori to be the sale of hot mix material and treating it to be unclassified item?" This matter has been argued at length by Sri Shubham Agrawal whose contentions are that in view of the apex court judgment in the case of K.G. Khosla and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in [1966 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The State has filed counter-affidavit. In paras 4 and 5 of the counteraffidavit, it is admitted to the State that bitumen and rori were hot mixed at Delhi under the supervision of the engineers of the contractor and then brought to NOIDA at the site of the construction. It has also come on record that rori was purchased from outside the State of U.P. while bitumen was purchased at Mathura. Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
