Shailesh Kumar Contractor Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax

Shailesh Kumar Contractor vs Commissioner of Trade Tax

Disposition Petition allowed Court Allahabad Decided Sep 04, 2000

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/485952

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/485952
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: R.K. Agrawal, J.
Decided On: Sep 04, 2000
Case Number: Trade Tax Revision No. 98 of 2000
Subject: Sales Tax
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Sales Tax
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 - Sections 7D

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shailesh Kumar Contractor

Respondent

Commissioner of Trade Tax

Legal References

Acts: Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 - Sections 7D
Reported In: [2002]128STC585(All)

Excerpt

- r.k. agrawal, j.1. shailesh kumar contractor, 136, brahmapuri, meerut, has filed the present revision against the order passed by the trade tax tribunal, bench ii, meerut, in second appeal no. 451 of 1996 (assessment year 1992-93).2. the facts of the case in brief are that the applicant is a contractor and was awarded a contract for construction of building by the central excise at shashtri nagar, meerut, including water supply, sewer, drainage by the central public works department vide work's order dated december 23, 1989. the applicant had received a payment of rs. 92,94,572 during the assessment year 1992-93. the contention of the applicant was that it had applied for compounding scheme in respect of this contract during the assessment years 1989-90 to 1991-92 and 1994-95 except assessment year 1992-93, which was accepted and, therefore, the benefit of compounding scheme should be made available in all the years in respect of the said contract. he further submitted that before the tribunal a specific ground was raised by the applicant that the goods which have been purchased from outside the state of u.p. is liable to be excluded while determining the turnover in view of the exemption given in section 3-f of the act. the tribunal had held that the benefit of compounding scheme cannot be granted to the applicant as it had not applied for the assessment year 1992-93. further, it had not examine the specific ground no. 14 mentioned in the memorandum of appeal regarding exemption on purchases made outside the u.p. it may be mentioned here that the question as to whether the benefit of compounding scheme is available to a contractor for the entire contract or in respect of a particular year to which he had opted has to be considered in the light of the compounding scheme introduced by the state government. the tribunal had not considered the compounding scheme. thus, the order of the tribunal cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. the tribunal is directed to.....

Full Judgment

R.K. Agrawal, J.

1. Shailesh Kumar Contractor, 136, Brahmapuri, Meerut, has filed the present revision against the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench II, Meerut, in Second Appeal No. 451 of 1996 (assessment year 1992-93).

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant is a contractor and was awarded a contract for construction of building by the Central excise at Shashtri Nagar, Meerut, including water supply, sewer, drainage by the Central Public Works Department vide work's order dated December 23, 1989. The applicant had received a payment of Rs. 92,94,572 during the assessment year 1992-93. The contention of the applicant was that it had applied for compounding scheme in respect of this contract during the assessment years 1989-90 to 1991-92 and 1994-95 except assessment year 1992-93, which was accepted and, therefore, the benefit of compounding scheme should be made available in all the years in respect of the said contract. He further submitted that before the Tribunal a specific ground was raised by the applicant that the goods which have been purchased from outside the State of U.P. is liable to be excluded while determining the turnover in view of the exemption given in Section 3-F of the Act. The Tribunal had held that the benefit of compounding scheme cannot be granted to the applicant as it had not applied for the assessment year 1992-93. Further, it had not examine the specific ground No. 14 mentioned in the memorandum of appeal regarding exemption on purchases made outside the U.P. It may be mentioned here that the question as to whether the benefit of compounding scheme is available to a contractor for the entire contract or in respect of a particular year to which he had opted has to be considered in the light of the compounding scheme introduced by the State Government. The Tribunal had not considered the compounding scheme. Thus, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law.

3. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2000 Same Parties Shailesh Kumar Contractor vs Commissioner of Trade Tax Same Subject Sales Tax Same Judge R.K. Agrawal, J. Acts & Sections Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 - Sections 7D

Sales Tax