9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the escalation that was permissible on these items in terms of the agreement and did not reflect on the actual expenditure incurred on the ground of labour and services. On the other hand, the books of account produced by the Petitioner-Assessee were accepted as such both by the STO as well as the ACST. They examined the books of account thoroughly and found that the amounts were properly accounted for. In fact, the STO also noted that the Assessee had produced Labour payment register, vouchers, Cash book, muster rolls and copies of the trial balance (audited) for the year 1996-97. With both the STO and the ACST having accepted the books of account produced by the Assessee without any reservation, there was no occasion for the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he operation of the impugned order and the consequential proceedings as per notice dated 18th March, 2004. That interim order has continued. 4. The following questions are framed for consideration by this Court: (a) Whether in the factual position coupled with settled position of law in the matter, the Tribunal is correct to hold that the deductions towards labour and service charges can be limited to 34% in the 1st year of the project work which is to be completed within a period of five years? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is correct to hold that the petitioner in execution of works contract has received any amount towards hire charges? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal came to the conclusion that it would be judicious and reasonable to limit the labour and service charges to 34% of the gross bills received towards execution of the works contract. Secondly, for the first time, State raised an additional ground before the Tribunal regarding alleged receipt of Rs. 1.34 Crores by the Petitioner towards hire charges of equipments and machinery. Although the Assessee disputed having received such an amount, the Tribunal considered it necessary to remand this issue also to the STO. 8. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Anup Narayan Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Department. 9. The Tribunal has in the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al balance (audited) for the year 1996-97. With both the STO and the ACST having accepted the books of account produced by the Assessee without any reservation, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to have limited the labour and service charges to 34%. The said conclusion of the Tribunal is based on mistaken notion of what Clause VII (e) of the agreement stood for. 11. Accordingly, Question No.(a) is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Department. 12. As regards Question Nos.(b) and (c) concerning hire charges purportedly received by the Assessee, the fact remains that no material whatsoever was produced by the Department to substantiate even prima facie that the Assessee had received that amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
