TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been dealt with and decided by an earlier decision of this Court in M/s Comfort Systems Vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax, U.P. [ 2019 (2) TMI 924 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ] where it was held that - The order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, the Tribunal has clearly applied the exact opposite rule. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal. Since the matter is being sent back to the Tribunal, no further observation is required to be made, as to the merits of the claim or as to the other finding recorded by the Tribunal that the goods had been purchased by the assessee, independent of the four works contract awarded to it or that there were two sales. That issue would remain to be re-agitated before the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal for confirming rejection of claim of deduction under Section 3F (2)(b)(i) of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 in respect of goods brought inside the State of U.P. by way of inter-State purchase for execution of works contract, is sustainable in law? 5. Briefly, during the assessment year in question, the assessee had engaged in execution of electrical works contract awarded by four contractees, namely, Mela Hotels Ltd., Ghaziabad; Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur; Somdutt Plaza, Kanpur and; Ocean Complex, Noida. 6. Undisputedly, the assessee imported goods from outside the State. It is the assessee's case that such import was made only for the purpose of execution of the aforesaid four works contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose of execution of works contract. 10. Amongst others, the Tribunal rejected the contention raised by the assessee on the reasoning that the benefit of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Act could be claimed by the assessee only if it had executed the works contract outside the State and had exported the goods from inside the State of U.P. to outside. 11. After applying such principle, the Tribunal has rejected the claim made by the assessee. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears, insofar as the applicability of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Act to such contracts is concerned, the issue has been dealt with and decided by an ear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat species of interstate sale transactions alone. 21. Therefore, merely because there was no privity of contract between the contractee and the actual seller of the goods (from whom the assessee made the purchases), and though such seller was not known/specified at the time of the execution of the works contract document, it would make no difference to the eligibilty to deduction claimed by the assessee under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Rules, on deemed inter-state sale arising upon transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of the works contract. On the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the goods in question had been moved from outside the State solely by reason of the pre-existing works contract and those goods h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
