Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2016 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1188 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of penalty u/s 8D(6) of the 1948 Act - Breach of the provisions of Section 8D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 - scope of works contract - failure to deduct tax in respect of a works contract - whether the contract in question was essentially one of providing labour and service and not a works contract? - the respondents have while passing the orders impugned herein noted that the contractor engaged by the revisionist utilized stone ballast, bajri and other articles in order to construct platforms as also to strengthen the trenches created. It is on this strength that they came to conclude that the contract in question was a works contract. Held that: - The payment terms were in no manner connected to the cost that may have been incurred by the contractor for the purpose of engaging men and labour. The contract was a composite contract, which entailed the laying of cables after undertaking civil works which have been detailed above. The contract cannot be read as one which was confined to the provision of labour. On an overall conspectus of the facts it is clear that the contract in question was not merely one for supply of labour and service as is sought to be contended and portrayed but clearly fell in the species of a works contract as defined by Section 2(m) of the 1948 Act. Subsection (2) of Section 3F makes a provision for the identification of items which are liable to be included or excluded while computing the net turnover which is liable to be taxed in respect of a works contract. This Court however, finds that neither before the authorities below nor even before this Court has the revisionist furnished any details in respect of the taxable turnover liable to be computed in accordance with the provisions of Section 3F (2)(b). In absence of the said material and as a consequence of the failure of the revisionist to provide such details, the learned Standing Counsel has rightly contended that the respondents committed no illegality in levying penalty upon the revisionist. The provisions of Section 3F deal with the computation and determination of net turnover of the works contractor. The identification of the valuable consideration paid in respect of a transfer of property in goods in the execution of a works contract is an exercise which was liable to be undertaken during the course of assessment of the works contractor. At this stage and in the absence of any material before this Court, no exercise of bifurcation can possibly be undertaken - This Court, therefore, finds no material or ground to interfere with the imposition of penalty or to upset the decisions rendered by the authorities below. Revision dismissed.
|