(1.) This revision petition is preferred by the State challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which has granted relief to the assessee on both the counts.
(2.) The assessee is engaged in the execution of civil works contract. The Assessing Authority completed assessment for the year 2001-2002 under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957(for short, hereinafter referred to as the "Act") determining the assessee's total and taxable turn over at Rs.71,91,406/- and Rs.19,98,558/- respectively as against the reported total and taxable turn over of Rs.66,47,964/- and Rs.6,40,391/- respectively. The Assessing Authority also passed an order under Section 12(4) of the Act imposing penalty of Rs.51,550/-. The assessee challenged the said assessment and penalty orders before the First Appellate Authority which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
(3.) The point in controversy is, assessee has claimed actual labour charges of Rs.21,83,608/-. However, the Assessing Authority disallowed labour charges amounting to Rs.4,34,721/- on the ground that the entire claim is based on self vouchers which is not permitted in law. Secondly its was contended, as the alleged suppression turn over of Rs.64,25,564/- was deducted from the entries in the account books of the assessee, the finding that assesse has suppressed, is without any merit. The Tribunal on re-appreciation of the entire material on record found that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.21,73,607/- towards labour payments against the self vouchers. The said payments are also duly entered in the books of sales returns filed. In fact, before the Tribunal xerox copies of the particulars such as Registers 1 and 2 to show the particulars of wages paid along self vouchers maintained by the appellant were also produced. Therefore, the Tribunal found the disallowance of labour charges of Rs.4,34,721/- by the Assessing Authority as confirmed by the first Appellate Authority, is not proper. Further it also held, in the absence of maintaining any account books, the assessee was entitled to reduction under Rule 6(4)(n)(v) of the Rules, at 30% of the value of the works contract. If that is taken into consideration, the assessee was entitled to deduction of much more than what he had claimed and therefore, the Tribunal found there is no substance in the case of the revenue and therefore, it set side the said portion of the order. Similarly, the turn-over which was said to have not been disclosed, the said particulars were obtained by the Intelligence Wing from the regular accounts maintained by the assessee. When the said figures are taken from his account books, the contention that he had deliberately suppressed the turn-over is without any basis and therefore the said portion of the order was also set aside. Aggrieved by the said order, State has preferred this revision to this Court.