Bhagawan Singh, and Others. Vs. State of U.P, and Another.

.....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. .....no. 4, etah in s.t. no. 225 of 2009, state v. bhagwan singh & others, (case crime no. 11 of 2009), under sections 147, 323, 324, 307, 504 i.p.c., police station - marhara, district - etah, whereby the discharge application of the applicant has been rejected.3. it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the discharge application of the applicants has been rejected without considering the facts and material on record and the case diary, which shows that no offence under the charged sections has been made out against the applicants.4. sri a. kumar singh has stated that the order impugned has been passed after considering the facts and material on record. it is a detailed and reasoned order, which needs no interference by this court.5. after hearing the learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned a.g.a. and after perusing the averments made in the present petition, this court is of the opinion that the learned counsel for the applicants could not point out any legal infirmity in the order impugned, which may warrant any interference by this court in exercise of power under section 482 cr.p.c. accordingly, the prayer for quashing of the order dated 16.04.2010 passed by learned additional session judge, court no. 4, etah in s.t. no. 225 of 2009, is hereby refused.6. the present application is finally disposed off with the direction to learned additional session judge, court no. 4, etah to consider and decide the s.t. no. 225 of 2009, state v. bhagwan singh & others, (case crime no. 11 of 2009), under sections 147, 323, 324, 307, 504 i.p.c., as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this court before the court below.