9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erpretation of Rule 9(3) and the grievance of assessee in that regard cannot be accepted. Tribunal was justified in treating the quantum of works contract to be ₹ 41,04,40,584/- and appropriating 30% thereof towards labour charges - Appeal dismissed - decided in favor of Revenue. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 195 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 18-5-2017 - Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. For the Applicant : Krishna Agarawal For the Opposite Party : C.S.C. ORDER 1. This revision is by the assessee, challenging an order passed by the Tribunal, dated 15.4.2017. 2. It may be noticed at the very outset that the order of Tribunal has been passed pursuant to a direction issued by this Court on 22.2.2017, in Revision No.70 of 2017 (M/S S.K. Jain Contractor, Lalitpur Vs. Commissioner of Trade/Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow), which is reproduced hereinafter:- 1. The revisionist, herein, is a works contractor, who is aggrieved by the order of the authorities under the Act, as affirmed by the order of the Tribunal, in so far as the payment made towards the labour charges have been disallowed deduction and only 30% deduction for the purpose has been permitted. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule-(3) exists on record that benefit under rule 9(1)(d) can be denied. It is contended that there is no justification reflected in the orders of the authority, which may justify discrediting the figures disclosed in the Books of Account by the assessee so as to warrant having recourse to sub Rule (3) of Rule-9. 4. It is also contended on behalf of the assessee that it had not purchased stone (Khanda) and that addition to its turnover by ₹ 40,00,000/- was without any basis. It is stated that merely because such purchases were made in previous years would not be a ground to include such amount in the correct year as well. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has invited attention of the Court to the assessment order and an attempt is sought to be made that appropriate accounts, in respect of the figures reflecting labour works were not maintained and furnished. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials brought on record. 7. Rule-9 regulates determination of turnover in a works contract. It is clear that the amount representing the value of service and labour and profit thereon is liable to be deducted if it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in rejecting the claim of the assessee. 10. The question of law, formulated for consideration in this revision is answered by holding that in the absence of any discussion and finding based upon the materials placed, doubting the figures reflected in the books of account to show the value of service of labour, the authorities were not justified in denying the benefit admissible to the assessee under Rule-9(1)(d) of the Rules. The Tribunal in such circumstances, would examine the matter afresh, keeping in view the provisions of Rule-9 and in light of the observations made above. 11. The second question posed for consideration in this revision is also answered by holding that in the absence of any material existing on record showing purchase of stone (Khanda) of ₹ 40,00,000/-, the authorities would not be justified in including such amount in the turnover merely for the reason that such purchases were made in the previous years. The figures shown for the current year along are relevant for such purposes. 12. Revision, accordingly, stands disposed of. 3. The assessee was awarded a contract for construction of a Dam at Lalitpur. Tribunal has returned a findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that segregation of labour charges amounting to ₹ 12,20,75,477/- is not substantiated from the contract, inasmuch as after excluding the earthwork, the remainder constitutes the works contract and from it, a sum of 30% alone was liable to have been appropriated towards the labour charges, as has been rightly held. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the materials brought on record. 8. The finding returned in the order of Tribunal that there exists only one contract is not disputed. The claim of assessee with regard to earthwork undertaken has already been accepted by the department, and therefore, requires no consideration. From the remainder, the assessee has attempted to segregate a part entirely towards labour charges and the remaining as constituting the works contract. Although the running bills have been presented in that regard, but there is nothing on record to show that contract itself admitted of a separate part being attributed only towards labour work, and to exclude that entire amount altogether and to leave the remaining part alone as constituting the works contract. In abse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
