ENGINEERS ENTERPRISES Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EXECUTIVE SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. TIWARI, J. Rejoinder affidavit filed today.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the exchange of affidavits and in accordance with the Rules of court we dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage.

(3.) THE State Government imposed a composition scheme under section 7-D of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, which is annexed as annexure 4 to the writ petition. Under this scheme the petitioner applied and the respondents accepted the said application in respect to the other work but did not accept it relating to the construction of washable apron, hence the claim of the petitioner was rejected to that extent. THE contention is that the concerned respondent-authority did not apply its mind in constructing the contract and hence committed illegality in rejecting the same. THE Commissioner's circular dated May 21, 1992 is annexed as annexure 8 to the writ petition. THE said circular records that only those works which are specifically mentioned in the composition scheme qualify for composition and to be constitute to be a civil contract. In other words it is exhaustive and not illustrative. Learned Standing Counsel contended that no illegality has been committed by the respondent-authorities as construction of washable apron does not fall under the scheme and hence, has been rightly rejected. THE reference to the Commissioner's circular, as aforesaid, is also relied in the counter-affidavit.