9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. Clause 3 read with Clause 3.1 of the Contract mentioned the total value of the contract as Rs.10,67,517/-. The Tribunal had noted the relevant clauses of the agreement in its judgment but relying upon specification of work/tender had segregated the contract awarded to the assessee between the work done by the assessee and the material supplied/purchased for the execution of work contract. Further, the notification dated 27.4.1987 has provided for levying of tax where the works contract has been executed over Rs.1 lakh and the description has been mentioned in the schedule of the notification. In the instant case, the agreement, which was arrived between the parties, did not segregate between works contract and the material to be supplie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;ble Court held that there is no liability of tax, still the impugned order passed by the Tribunal holding that the applicant is liable to tax is justified? (2) Whether in view of the judgement of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Dharmex Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that the goods have been purchased from outside the State of U.P. to be used in execution of works contract, still the levy of tax under the U.P. Trade Tax Act is justified? . The short controversy in the present revision is that whether the works contract awarded to assessee for the year 1989-1990 could be divided into two parts i.e. supply of goods and works contract. The Assessing Authority had made an assessment on 31.3.1994 holding that the assessee was liable to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ract, so executed. According to him, there was no division between the work executed by the contractor and the cost of the material supplied. He then invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-1, which is the work specification/tender executed between the parties, wherein at serial no.2 in column no.3, description of items has been given which not only includes the cost of the material but also the cost of laying the pipes and execution of the work. Column 7 mentions the amount of Rs.9,96,300/- to be paid to the contractor. The total amount of the contractor is Rs. 10,67,517/-. Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel, submitted that Tribunal had rightly held that the contract was divisible and the Assessing Authority had rightly ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tractor for the material as well as the works contract. The interpretation given by the Assessing Authority and Tribunal cannot be sustained in view of the agreement arrived between the parties. The notification dated 27.4.1987 is not applicable in the case of assessee - revisionist. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the finding recorded by the Tribunal as to the segregation of the work done by the assessee, pursuant to the agreement entered between the assessee and the Auraiya Gas Power Project, the order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside. Revision stands allowed. The question of law, as framed above, stands answered in favour of the assessee and again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
