SHIVA TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision under Section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated November 6, 1999 relating to the assessment year 1993 -94.

(2.) THE assessing authority had received the information that the applicant had supplied stone ballast to the Railway Department and received the payment of Rs. 8,45,429.45. During the course of assessment proceedings, the applicant had accepted the receipt of the payment but submitted that a sum of Rs. 2,57,337.82 was received towards the cost of the ballast and the rest of the amount was received towards the freight charges and labour charges. In support of his claim, copy of the contract and bills was not produced before the assessing authority. The assessing authority by way of best judgment assessment estimated the taxable turnover at Rs. 9 lacs. Applicant filed first appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) the photocopy of the contract for the year 1989 -90 was produced and it was submitted that the contract for the year under consideration was also the same. It was submitted that in the contract for the assessment year 1989 -90 there was a separate stipulation for the cost of the ballast and the freight charges. First appellate authority has allowed the appeal in part and has accepted the claim of the applicant so far as the freight is concerned and levied the tax only on the turnover of the value of stone ballast for Rs. 2,57,337.82. The Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal in part. The Tribunal confirmed the levy of tax on the amount of Rs. 8,45,429.45, the total amount received by the applicant during the year under consideration and has rejected the claim of the applicant that the freight would not be liable to tax.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant submitted that only the value of the stone ballast was liable to tax and the freight would not be liable to tax. He submitted that in the contract, there was separate stipulation for the value of the stone ballast and the freight charges. Thus, freight and other expenses would not be liable to tax.