TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide order dated February 25, 2010 to consider the following substantial question of law: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on true and correct interpretation of the agreement, entered into between the respondent and BMC contractee for execution of works contract of water supply project, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the water charges and sewerage ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BMC itself and the cost therefor was agreed to be borne by BMC. The cost to be charged and deducted in the appellant's bills in this regard were determined by BMC at certain percentages with reference to the evaluated and accepted contract value, (i.e., six per cent in respect of water charges and three per cent in respect of sewerage charges). This determination of cost on account of provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inly on the ground that on the particular facts, the said amounts being neither received nor receivable by the appellant under the contract, are not part of the taxable contract value and hence are not liable to composition tax under section 6A. 8.. From the facts of the case as emerging from the relevant terms of the contract and as narrated above, we have absolutely no doubt in our minds that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether there is any evidence to raise slightest doubt as regards this factual position regarding the amounts being neither receivable nor received by the appellant as per the contract, then having regard to the specific and express provisions in section 6A, no legal question can be said to have arisen from the impugned judgment to hold the said amounts to be not part of the contract value liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
