ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, WORKS CONTRACT & LEASING TAX, ZONE-2 Vs. E.C.E. INDUSTRIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against the order December 17, 2008 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeal No. 903/2007/Jaipur, whereby the appeal filed by the Revenue has been dismissed. It relates to the assessment year 2001 -02. It is claimed that the respondent -assessee is engaged in the business of lift -elevators and its spare parts and installation of lift -elevators as well. The assessing officer during the course of assessment found that the respondent is bringing lift -elevators and its spares from outside State of Rajasthan through its employees and branch transfer and is using the said goods at different sites. In the maximum contracts the signature is of branch manager of Jaipur. The delivery of the goods were taken by the employees of Jaipur branch and thereafter were sent to different sites. The goods were bought on form ST -18A which were issued to the Jaipur branch. In such circumstances the sale made by the respondent were treated as local sale by the assessing officer and he, therefore, imposed tax, interest and penalty under Sec. 61 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. Dissatisfied with the addition, the matter was challenged in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal of the respondent -assessee. The matter was carried further in appeal by the Revenue before the Tax Board, where the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, relying upon the judgments rendered in the cases of English Electric Company of India Ltd. v/s. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer : [1976] 38 STC 475 (SC) and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v/s. Commercial Tax Officer : [1985] 60 STC 301 (SC).

(2.) It may be appropriate to observe that in the earlier years as well the assessing officer did not accept the contention of the assessee in the assessment years 1999 -2000 and 2000 -01, wherein also the Tax Board upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the contention of the Revenue. The said two assessment orders were assailed before this court in STR 270/2008 and STR 271/2008 where this court dismissed the revision petitions filed by the Revenue vide order dated March 3, 2008 in both the assessment years. Taking into consideration the fact that identical and similar issue in between the same parties, have been dismissed by this court for the earlier assessment years and there is no distinguishing facts in between the earlier years vis -a -vis the present year, therefore, in the light of the judgment passed in STR 270/2008 and STR 271/2008, the present revision petition also does not survive, accordingly the present petition is also dismissed.