9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e paid to the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Ltd. as they were given task of constructing Stadium. The Accountant of the revisionist in his statement before the Tribunal has admitted that payments were infact made directly to the Agency on which TDS was to be deducted and deposited with the State authorities. Once it is admitted that payment was made by the revisionist directly to U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Nigam Ltd. then they were mandated to deduct the amount of TDS on such payments. Non deduction of TDS would be deemed to be intentional for which the penalty has rightly been imposed. No interference is required by this Court in the order dated 14.03.2019, passed by the Tribunal - The revisions being devoid of merits are rejected. - Hon'bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessitating tax deduction at source. It is for the said reason that TDS was not deducted by the revisionist on the payments made to the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Nigam Ltd. for construction of Stadium. 5. Noticing the said argument of revisionist, this Court by means of judgment dated 13.07.2017, had disposed of the revision remanding the matter to the Commercial Tax Tribunal for looking into the facts as asserted by the revisionist before this Court. 6. In the remand proceedings, the Tribunal directed the revisionist to produce material on the basis of which it can be demonstrated that funds of the State Government were transferred directly to the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Nigam Ltd. and if the facts were so then the revisionist cannot be sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gency(s) who are undertaking construction work. 9. Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the revisionist stating that U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Nigam Ltd. has also deducted TDS of the Contractor under Section 34(8) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 and has accordingly submitted that for the same transaction VAT can be deducted twice. This argument is also not held to have any worth as U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Ltd. was also deducting TDS on the amount they were paying to the Contractor and not on the amount which they had received from the revisionist. 10. From the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly imposed penalty upon the revisionist for not deducting TDS on the amounts which were paid to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
