LAWS(ST)-2004-8-3

KAYSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On August 03, 2004
Kayson Construction Company Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed against the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada, dated 6.9.2003 in Appeal No. LLR/75/2003 -2004. The relevant facts in brief are as follows. The appellant M/s. Kayson Construction Company, Pedatadepalli engaged in works contract agreement with Engineer -in -Chief, Roads & Buildings, Administration, for execution of works contract viz., widening and strengthening of Eluru -Devarapalli and Pentapadu -Palakole Roads. Their place of business is situated at Pedatadepalli and they are registered dealers on the rolls of Assistant Commissioner, LTU, Eluru Division. For the assessment year 2000 -01, the appellant filed A2 returns showing the gross turnover as Rs. 3,07,55,928/ -. Out of which, the appellant claimed exemption for Rs. 2,15,02,315/ - and showed the net turnover as Rs. 92,53,613/ -. The Assistant Commissioner, LTU, Eluru Division rejected the said turnovers and re -determined the turnovers as follows.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT), Vijayawada contending that the Assistant Commissioner erred in not deducting the amount paid to the subcontractor and similarly erred in not deducting the overhead charges of Rs. 10,90,268/ -. It was contended further before the A.D.C., that even if the sub -contractor did not file returns they are not responsible for the same and they should be allowed exemption on the portion of sub -contract given to the sub -contractor. The learned A.D.C., rejected the contentions of the assessee and dismissed the appeal with the following observations.

(3.) DURING the course of hearing of the appeal, revised grounds of appeal have been filed on 22.3.2004 contending that A.D.C's order is arbitrary to the extent of turnovers disputed in this appeal and that the appellant is entitled for deduction of payments made during the year towards sub -contractor, labour charges, actual payments incurred on the own portion of the contract, machinery hire charges and consumables used in machinery operations in accordance with Rule 6(2)(a) to (I) of the APGST Rules as against the earlier claim made in the grounds of appeal with Form II filed on 23.10.2003 and that appropriate directions are to be given to the assessing authority to pass denovo assessment order for the assessment year 2000 -01 afresh.