BLUE STAR LTD Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner company, engaged in the business of execution of works contracts, was assessed to sales tax for the period 1995-96 by an order dated 26.6.1998 passed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the assessment made, a revision application under Section 36 of the Assam Sales General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1993) was filed by the petitioner company and the revision having been rejected by order dated 13.7.1999, the instant writ petition has been filed.

(2.) A perusal of the pleadings contained in the writ petition, and a consideration of arguments advanced by Mr. J. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, would go to show that four grievances, in the main, have been projected by the wrist petitioners as against the assessment order made by the primary authority as upheld by the Revisional Authority. Firstly it has been contended that the benefit of tax already deducted at source has been granted by the lower authorities only on the basis of treasury challans showing deposit of tax deducted at source in to the Government Treasury and while considering the entitlement of the writ petitioner - assessee on the said account, several tax deductions certificates showing deduction of tax at source have been ignored. Secondly, it has been contended that several items procured by the petitioner assessee, in the course of inter State sales on which tax under the Central Sales Tax Act had already been paid, have again been assessed to tax under the Act of 1993 and in a similar fashion items procured within the State on which the tax has already been paid under the Act of 1993, have been again assessed to tax by the authorities below. The benefits of exemption on account of labour and other charges under the provisions of Section 8(3)(iv) of the Act of 1993 as claimed by the assessee have not been allowed in full. Lastly, it has been contended that the assessment has been made without adhering to the provisions of the Rule 14(l)(d) of the Rules framed under the Act of 1993.

(3.) The claims advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner assessee have been resisted by the State, who are represented by Mr. NC Phukan, learned Government Advocate. Mr. Phukan has placed before the Court the various averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the State Respondent opposing the contentions advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner.