COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX Vs. SAMAR SINGH

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 Tribunal dated April 26,1999 for the assessment year 1994 -95.

(2.) DEALER /opposite party (hereinafter referred to as 'dealer') is a civil contractor and admittedly executed the civil nature of contract during the year under consideration. The value of the goods involved in the execution of the works contract was liable in to tax under section3 -F of the Act. Dealer had not maintained any books of account. During the year under consideration, dealer had received total payment to the extent of Rs. 6,53,419 against the work executed. In the absence of any books of account, assessing authority after allowing the benefit of 30 per cent labour charges, estimated the value of the goods used in the execution of works contract at Rs. 4,57,393.65. Dealer had furnished the details of the tax -paid goods to the extent of Rs. 1,01,018. Benefit of such amount has been allowed and thereafter the balance amount of Rs. 3,56,375.65 had been taxed in respect of which no evidence had been adduced that the goods had been subjected to tax. First appeal filed by the dealer was allowed in part. First appellate authority upheld the levy of tax on the morang and sand but has deleted the tax on the cement and bricks being purchased within the State of U.P. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order confirmed the order of the first appellate authority and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has upheld the deletion of the tax on the turnover of cement and brick only on the ground that in respect of such goods, dealer was not importer or manufacturer. He submitted that the contractor is entitled for the deduction from the gross turnover under Section 3 -F(2)(b)(iii) of the Act in respect of the amount representing the value of the goods, on the sale or purchase whereof the tax has been levied or is liable under this Act at some earlier stage. He submitted that no evidence has been adduced by the dealer before the assessing authority or before any authority that on the value of cement and brick, tax has been levied under this Act at some earlier stage. Thus, the exemption on such turnover is illegal. Learned Counsel for the dealer relied upon the order of the Tribunal. I find substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel.