TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1972 (10) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be transported. It invited tenders for that work. The petitioner submitted a tender which was accepted by a letter dated 26th February, 1966, issued from the office of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Bahraich. The petitioner in pursuance of that contract carried out the work and received payment from the P.W. Department in accordance with the rate agreed upon. The Sales Tax Officer assessed the petitioner under section 7(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act on the payment of Rs. 80,000 to a tax of Rs. 1,600. The petitioner did pay this tax. Subsequently, information was received by the Sales Tax Officer that the total payment received by the petitioner from the P.W. Department in connection with the contract was Rs. 6,23,687. He accordingly reopene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Srivastava, the Sales Tax Officer, Bahraich, has stated that all the documents now filed along with the writ petition were not produced before him nor were any books of accounts produced. Therefore, the assessment order was justified on the material placed before him. However, in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit he has admitted that the petitioner has filed a written objection (annexure VI) and annexures 1, 3 and 4 to the writ petition and annexure CAL to the counter-affidavit. Annexure VI, which is a copy of the written statement filed by the petitioner before the Sales Tax Officer, clearly sets out the following: "That the petitioner had taken the contract for the collection and loading of stone ballast and boulders to the L.R.P. and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enty 1 1/2" gauge only. Katiara Cauri Stone Ballast at Bichia Railway Station. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annexure IV is a letter from the Executive Engineer dated 22nd July, 1966, addressed to the petitioner where the subject mentioned is "collection of stone ballast at Bichia Railway Station". There is nothing in these documents which suggests that the petitioner had undertaken any contract of supply of ballast. On the other hand, they very clearly show that the contract was merely for the transportation and stacking of ballast stone. The Sales Tax Officer has considered this contract to be a contract of supply. Now a contract of supply in order to be taxable under the ....