9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent case, the Tribunal recorded a specific finding that there pre-existed works contracts between the assessee and the contractees and further the assessee had purchased the goods from outside the State of U.P., only to execute those pre-existing works contracts, in absence of any further finding that such goods had been sourced from before or that they were not applied to the works contract or that there arose two sales, the assessee was clearly entitled to the benefit of deduction contemplated under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Rules. The questions of law framed in the present revision is answered in affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue - revision dismissed. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision Defective No. - 144 of 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dded Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By means of the present revision the judggment and order passed by the Tribunal dated 06.04.2018 is under challenge. The respondent-assessee is a registered dealer under the Act and is in the business of work contract. The present revision relates to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessing authority levied a tax of ₹ 48,33,974/- vide assessment order dated 30.04.2015. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the assessee filed first appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal) IV Commercial Tax, Kanpur, which was allowed by the order dated 30.06.2015 and the tax liability was reduced. The Assessee being aggrieved filed a second appeal before the Commercial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State of U.P. However, there does not appear any reason or circumstance to limit the applicability of the Rule to that species of inter-state sale transactions alone. 21. Therefore, merely because there was no privity of contract between the contractee and the actual seller of the goods (from whom the assessee made the purchases), and though such seller was not known/specified at the time of the execution of the works contract document, it would make no difference to the eligibilty to deduction claimed by the assessee under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Rules, on deemed inter-state sale arising upon transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of the works contract. On the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the goods in question h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
