9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. During the assessment year under consideration, the petitioner received two contracts of civil work for building and for sanitary and electricity work for Rs. 17,16,455 and 24,31,609, respectively. The petitioner did the civil work in Nanda Khera commercial-cumresidential complex as well as electricity, sanitary fitting works. The petitioner claimed the composite contract for civil, electricity and sanitary, but the assessing officer has passed an order under section 7D of the Act, against which, the appeal was filed, but the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed second appeal before the Tribunal, who has dismissed the appeal. Not being satisfied, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. With this ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of the contract. (3) Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna v. Indian Cable Co. Ltd. [1971] 27 STC 488 (Patna), where it was observed that the contract between the parties was a works contract and not a central relating to sale of goods. Therefore, it was not liable to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. But the fact remains in the instant case that the Central Sales Tax Act is not involved. So, the ratio is not applicable. Lastly, he made a request that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. On the other hand, Sri D. R. Misra, learned standing counsel justified the impugned order without making any contribution. After hearing both the parties, it appears that the petitioner has taken the contract for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Deputy Commissioner (Executive), therefore, the assessment proceedings on the amount of Rs. 5,94,304 was initiated by the authority competent, where it was found that the petitioner used material of Rs. 4,75,472 for completion of works contract. After the date of agreement of contract, the petitioner had purchased material for amount of Rs. 2,01,950 to which he placed list which were exempted from tax. In respect of purchase of Rs. 2,73,522 no evidence was placed, therefore, the material of Rs. 2,73,522 was treated as inter-State purchase for using in works contract. Thus, vide order dated January 31, 1993 tax demand of Rs. 36,104 was imposed upon the petitioner. In view of the above, the orders passed by the lower authorities appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
