TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchases of the Contractor. Therefore, it could not be treated as violation of the condition No. 4 of the Notification dated 28.04.1993. - Court finds no force in the present revision petition filed on behalf of the Revenue and the same is liable to be dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 22.08.2013 passed in the case of CTO Vs. M/s Jatan Construction Pvt. Ltd., while upholding the orders of the Deputy Commissioners (Appeals) and of the learned Tax Board. - Decided against Revenue. - S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO. 439/2005 - - - Dated:- 17-9-2015 - Dr. Vineet Kothari, J Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, Mr. Dinesh Godara And Mr. Falgun Buch : For the Petitioner Ms. Sushila Sharma on behalf of Mr. D.K. Sharma : For the Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... caused by the respondents under the law. 3. The learned counsel Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur appearing for the Revenue fairly submitted that the controversy involved in the present revision petition has been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer, Works Contract Leasing Tax, Commercial Taxes, Ajmer Vs. M/s Jatan Construction Pvt. Ltd., Kar Bhawan Ka Pass, Todarmal Marg, Ajmer [S.B. Salex Tax Revision Petition No.67/2006, decided on 22.08.2013]. 4. The relevant observations of the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid case is quoted herein below for ready reference:- 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if he has paid any tax at the rate of such purchases, tax so paid shall be allowed as set off again the tax payable by him under this condition. 9. Section 4(2) of the RST Act, 1954 is also quoted hereunder:- 4. Act not to apply to certain sales.--- (1).......... (2) Where the State Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, [exempt, whether prospetively or retrospectively], from tax the [sale or purchase] of any goods or class of goods or any person or class of persons on such conditions and on payment of such fee as may be specified in the notification. 10. On perusal of the above notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods involved in the execution of the works contract is only applicable to purchases to be made within the State under the various provisions of the RST Act. In my view, the correct interpretation of the words declaration forms used in condition No.4 of the said notification would certainly mean declaration forms under the RST Act for it has been issued under the RST Act. Accordingly, in my view, the petitionerassessing officer erred in levying additional tax alongwith Interest on the value of the goods purchased by the respondent-assessee against declaration form 'C' under the provisions of the CST Act as by doing so, no violation of condition No.4 of the notification, aforesaid, was caused by the respondent-assessee under the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es made by the contractor without paying the tax or paying tax at the concessional rate of tax in the course of inter-State trade or commerce under CST Act, the difference of tax would be levied. Further the Condition No. 5, clarifies the situation beyond doubt, that if the contractor uses the declaration forms in violation of Condition No.4 then, he shall be liable, apart from paying the exemption fees under this notification, to pay tax on the said purchases at the full rate notified under Section 5 of the RST Act with interest and the tax so paid shall be allowed as set off against the tax payable by him under this notification. The State Legislature has no power to impose additional tax in case of inter-State purchases made against ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also, the same view appears to be in consonance with the harmonious reading of the conditions of the Notification and, therefore, this Court is in respectful agreement with the said view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court at Jaipur Bench. 9. In view of the discussion aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the present revision petition filed on behalf of the Revenue and the same is liable to be dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 22.08.2013 passed in the case of CTO Vs. M/s Jatan Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra), while upholding the orders of the Deputy Commissioners (Appeals) and of the learned Tax Board. 10. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present revision petition filed by the Revenue is dismissed. No ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
