WOOD ENTERPRISE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ application, the petitioner has challenged not only the legality of the show cause notice, dated 3. 3. 2006, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia, but also the vires and validity of Section 8 (3) (iv) (a) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, (in short the Act of 1993) on the ground that Section 8 (3) (iv) (a) is beyond the legislative power and competence of the State.

(2.) THE material facts, in brief, are thus : The petitioner is engaged in sale and supply of electrical goods and it executed various works contract with the railways and other public bodies. The petitioner submitted, under the Act of 1993, its return to turnover, in respect of not only supply of goods and services, but also in respect of works contract for the assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. The Superintendent of Taxes, Tinsukia, upon verification of the records of the petitioner, assessed, vide assessment orders, dated 18. 10. 2004 and 11. 03. 2005, the tax liabilities of the petitioner for the assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 respectively and issued notices of demands accordingly. The petitioner complied with the notices of demands, so issued. However, subsequent thereto, the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Tinsukia, vide notice, dated 3. 3. 2006, informed the petitioner that there was an irregularity in allowing deduction of turnover amounting to Rs. 57,96,189/- used in works contract. The petitioner was, therefore, directed to show cause as to why the assessment for the assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 should not be revised and interest should not be levied. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner has instituted the present writ proceeding challenging, as already indicated hereinabove, the said notice as well as the provisions of Section 8 (3) (iv) (a) of the Act of 1993, as the same stands amended with effect from 19. 10. 2001.

(3.) I have heard Mr. K. K. Gupta, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. S. K. Dubey, learned counsel, for the State respondents.