- (1.) Present petition has been filed against the order dated October 7, 2003 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 569 of 2002 for the assessment year 1988-89. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm constituted for taking the job work contract. During the assessment year under consideration, the petitioner received two contracts of civil work for building and for sanitary and electricity work for Rs. 17,16,455 and 24,31,609, respectively.
(2.) The petitioner did the civil work in Nanda Khera commercial-cum- residential complex as well as electricity, sanitary fitting works. The petitioner claimed the composite contract for civil, electricity and sanitary, but the assessing officer, has passed an order under section 7D of the Act, against which, the appeal was filed, but the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed second appeal before the Tribunal, who has dismissed the appeal. Not being satisfied, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) With this background, Sri S.M.K. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel, for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has maintained separate accounts in respect of goods involved in the execution of above contracts and payment in lieu of labour charges was shown separately in the cash book and ledger account. Accordingly, the labour charges were paid by the petitioner, which should have been deducted from the value of the receipts of the contract. He also submits that all electrical and sanitary works were done by the petitioner. So, the same should be covered in the composite scheme under section 7D of the Act. The order passed by the assessing officer is against the provision of the law as there is no such provision by which the demand of composite fee of Rs. 17,163 under section 7D of the Act would be created in proceedings under rule 41(7). Further, the petitioner was assessed the tax of Rs. 36,104 on the estimated turnover of Rs. 2,73,520, which is extremely high. To support his argument, he relied on the ratio laid down in the following cases: (1) Lal Chand & Company v. State of U.P.,1997 10 NTN 356, where it was observed that the water pipeline is laid down exactly in the same fashion as the sewer line. (2) Arun Electrics v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, 1966 17 STC 576 , where it was observed that the sales tax is exigible may be determined only on the terms of the contract, and not from the invoice issued by the person entitled to receive money under the terms of the contract. (3) Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna v. Indian Cable Co. Ltd., 1969 27 STC 487 , where it was observed that the contract between the parties was a works contract and not a central relating to sale of goods. Therefore, it was not liable to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.;