9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall also take into account the assertion of the revisionist herein that in the earlier assessment year i.e. 2003-014 and the years subsequent to the one in dispute, i.e. year 2007-08 such deductions were allowed by the Revenue under similar works contract with the same parties - In view of the above, the question as to whether the revisionist was entitled to the deductions claimed under Section 3-F(2)(b)(iii) or not shall be looked into by the Tribunal in the light of what has been stated herein and record its finding accordingly in accordance with law keeping in mind Rule 68(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948, as the relevant issue have not been appropriately considered. Tax Revision disposed off. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.12.2006 and 25.3.2006?" The revisionist dealer filed a First Appeal specifically taking a ground therein that the goods seized did not relate to the works contract and these were part of separate Trading/Sale activities of the revisionist and that he was not a manufacturer of finished aluminium windows, but, the First Appellate Authority disbelieved the version of the revisionist and rejected the appeal vide order dated 19.12.2011 recording a finding after going through the work contract that the goods were in relation to the said contract and as the revisionist was a manufacturer, therefore, not entitled to the deductions claimed. A second appeal was filed by the revisionist before the Tribunal which was also rejected. On a perusa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 3-F as stated hereinabove, whereas, in fact the goods seized were not related to the works contract. It is also the contention of the revisionist that the opposite parties have themselves allowed the benefit under Section 3-F(2)(b)(vi), therefore, for this reason also there was no occasion to disallow the other benefit under Sub-section 2(b)(iii). Shri Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State contended that the revisionist could not prove that the seized goods had been manufactured at the site of the work contract and there was enough evidence to arrive at the conclusion that they were finished goods manufactured in a factory. Accordingly, the deductions were rightly disallowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and record its finding firstly as to whether the goods in question were aluminium sections/ sheets which had been purchased by the revisionist from M/s Sadi Ram and Sons, Lucknow and whether the same had been cut to facilitate its transportation to Kanpur and also whether these goods which were being transported to Kanpur had any relation to the works contract, as, the site of such contract as claimed by the revisionist was Lucknow and not at Kanpur. In this process the Tribunal shall also see as to whether the revisionist has proof to show that the aluminium sheets/ sections were purchased from M/s Sadi Ram and Sons or any other registered dealer within the State and tax on such goods had been paid on such purchase and thereafter, record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
