Ram Saran, and ors. Vs. State of U.P.

.....and examining the scope of explanation i to sub-rule (4) of rule 6 of the rules construed in this background and answer the question. - further held, that it is the goods of the assessee for the purpose of execution of the works contract, which the assessee otherwise, could have hired the machinery and tools, instead of utilizing its own machinery and tools and in the process of execution of the work, the machinery and tools are worn down and depreciates in value and as the end price i.e., the value of the contract is fixed or determined by the contract factoring this wear and tear to the machinery and tools as a consequence of using them for the execution of the works contract, the value of the proportionate wear and tear of the machinery which is otherwise identified as depreciation has to be necessarily permitted as a deduction on the premise that it is equivalent to the hire charges as is otherwise provided in clause (d) and for such purpose one has to understand the same even in terms of the language of explanation i as quoted and particularly, to be one within the scope of "other similar expenses relatable to supply of labour and services." - while the extent of usage of machinery and tools in the execution, of any contract is dependent on facts and has to be worked out in each case and on ascertainment of all aspects of the matter - constitution of india - entry 54 of list ii in schedule vii - ganon dunker ley & co - (madras) ltd., vs. state of madras (1954) stc 216/air 1954 mad 1130 affirmed by the apex court in state of madras vs. ganon dunker ley & co - (madras) ltd.,(1958) 9 stc 353 - discussed. (paras 30, 34, 39) s.t.r.p. is allowed. .....support of his contention. as the applicant nos.2, 3 & 4 are ladies, therefore, in the interest of justice their bail application is considered on the same day by the court below. 5. from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. all the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court under section 482 cr.p.c. at this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by supreme court in cases of r.p. kapur v. state of punjab, a.i.r. 1960 s.c. 866, state of haryana v. bhajan lal, 1992 scc (cr.) 426, state of bihar v. p.p.sharma, 1992 scc (cr.) 192 and lastly zandu pharmaceutical works ltd. v. mohd. saraful haq and another (para-10) 2005 scc (cr.) 283. the disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge under sections 239, 227/228 or 245(2) cr.p.c. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.6. the prayer for quashing the proceedings is hereby refused. 7. however, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant nos.2,3 & 4 shall be considered by the court below on the same day if possible, and for remaining applicant his prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid by this court in the case of amrawati and another v. state of u.p. reported in 2004 (57) alr 290 and in a recent decision in criminal appeal no. 538 of 2009, lalkamlendra pratap singh v. state of u.p. for a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken.....