9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner after noticing the fact that not giving deductions of ₹ 3,96,826.72 paid by him towards labour charges in which as per the decision of the Supreme Court referred to supra, the assessing authority has to examine the claim of the petitioner including the claim of ₹ 9,22,611.46 said to have paid towards the labour charges. Appeal dismissed. - 4 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2009 - GOPALAGOWDA V. AND RAVI MALIMATH, JJ. ORDER:- The order of te court was made by V. GOPALAGOWDA J. The unsuccessful assessee was before the Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal, which is registered in S.T.A. No. 979 of 2003, in which appeal order dated January 19, 2006 was passed by placing reliance upon the judgment of the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 25A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 hereinafter called as the KST Act is not properly considered and passed order by the Tribunal. Therefore, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner framing certain questions of law and requested this court to answer the same in its favour as the same would arise for consideration of this court. We have considered the questions of law. The substantial questions of law Nos. 2 and 3 read thus: (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the honourable Tribunal and revisional authority are right in disallowing the deductions claimed by the petitioner as a works contractor in view of rule 6(4)(m) of the KST Rules and the law laid down by the honourable Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner is examined in the review petition with a view to find out whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the appeal proceedings initiated by the assessee. With reference to the said contention, a categorical finding of fact is recorded by the Tribunal by answering the issue No. 1 stating that the petitioner should have put forth its claim along with evidence and if such claim was not considered either by the revisional authority or the Appellate Tribunal of question of rectification of their order did arise. In the petitioner s case the Tribunal has clearly discussed the claim in respect of which deduction was claimed in the light of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Gannon Dunkerley ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
