9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, Rule 9 (1)(e) of the Rules would definitely apply and the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit thereunder. The general rule of law in taxing statutes is that in case of any doubt the benefit should be given to the assessee. However, in case of exemption and deduction to be given, a stricter approach may be followed, as per catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, to examine whether the assessee is eligible for such benefit. In the present case, there is no factual dispute of goods having been imported from outside the State of U.P. and, therefore, the assessee clearly qualifies for the said benefit. The question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department - Application dismissed. - Hon'ble Shekh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of respondent assessee has relied upon paragraph nos. 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21 and 23 to buttress his argument that the ratio of the case is that when the goods are coming from outside the State and the Tribunal comes to a specific finding that the goods were brought in to the State for the purpose of carrying out pre-existing works contract, the benefit of deduction contemplated under Section 9(1)(e) of the Rules would be available to the assessee. 5. Upon perusal of the order of Tribunal it is patently clear that the goods were imported from outside the State of U.P. and were used in one project in the State of U.P. There does not appear to be any perversity in the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal, the deemed sale was one performed in the course of inter-state sale as the movement of the goods had been occasioned from outside the state, only for the purpose of execution of the works contracts, by the assessee. 14. It would have been a completely different case if the assessee had been found to hold in stock any goods that may have been imported from before and may have been applied to the works contract subsequently. However, neither there is any room for presumption nor such speculation is permissible in the clear facts of the present case. . . . 19. That being the governing principle, the language of Rule 9(1)(e) of the Rules relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel has to be examined in that light. In absence of any legis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
