9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -I, Lucknow, the judgment and order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the First Appellate Authority and the impugned Assessment Order dated 15.01.2010 by which the claim of the petitioner to deductions to the tune of Rs. 94,91,865.36/- under Section 3-F(2)(b)(iii) was disallowed on the ground that on interception of a vehicle carrying the goods of the revisionist finished aluminium windows were seized and the Driver of the vehicle gave a statement that he had loaded finished aluminium windows from the factory and on this premise the conclusion was drawn that the revisionist was a manufacturer of finished aluminium windows and therefore, the deductions were disallowed in connection with the works contract entered by the revisionist with the U.P. Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions would be allowed but in view of the statement given by the Driver of the vehicle that he had loaded the said goods from the factory it opined that the conclusions drawn by the Authorities that the revisionist was a manufacturer and that the goods could not be treated as being in connection with the works contract and the goods were not being assembled or manufactured at the site of the contract where the contract would be implemented. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the goods which were seized were not in connection with the works contract in question, therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and the Appellate/ Assessing Authority based on the interception and seizure of the vehicle in question carry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e its transportation to Kanpur which had nothing to do with the works contract in question, therefore, in these circumstances, the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal and the other Authorities are perverse, he could not give a satisfactory reply. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the issue involved herein has not been appropriately considered at any level. At the level of the First Appellate Authority though specifically a ground was taken but the issue was considered in a cursory manner on a bare reading of the works-contract the goods seized were related to it, which was not the correct approach. No doubt the revisionist herein had not taken this ground specifically before the Tribunal but in order to giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar works contract with the same parties. In view of the above, the question as to whether the revisionist was entitled to the deductions claimed under Section 3-F(2)(b)(iii) or not shall be looked into by the Tribunal in the light of what has been stated herein and record its finding accordingly in accordance with law keeping in mind Rule 68(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948, as the relevant issue have not been appropriately considered. The order of the Tribunal is accordingly set- aside. It shall be open for the revisionist to amend the revision and lead such evidence on the aforesaid issues as may be permissible in law. The question is answered accordingly.
The trade tax revision is disposed of accordingly. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
