- (1.) Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal learned counsel for the assessee and the learned standing counsel. This revision has been filed by the assessee against an order passed by the tribunal dated 5.5.2011 by which the tribunal has rejected the application of the assessee for composition and application for tax deduction at a lower rate under section 34 (5) of the Act.
(2.) The questions of law referred are as under: "(i)Whether the tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the department without considering all the reasoning's given by the first appellate authority in allowing the benefit of composition scheme to the applicant (ii)Whether the tribunal was justified in holding the civil works contract carried on by the applicant of laying, curing and concerting the slab of building to be merely a supply of concrete just because no steel is used in the contract, which is in teeth of the judgments of this Hon'ble Court and the Apex Court (iii)Whether the justified in passing the impugned order, without properly considering the similar contract of the applicant with M/s Supertech Ltd., wherein the benefit of composition has been granted (iv)Whether the tribunal was justified in holding the work contract of the applicant to be merely the contract of supply, though the cement is being provided free of cost by the contractee and hence the main object of the contract is not transfer of property but is of transfer of work and labour, wherein the goods passed on to the contractee by the theory of accretion -
(3.) The facts of the case are that the assessee entered into a contract with M/s. Gardenia Builders and Developers Ltd. for construction of civil structure and description of the job work was required to be done i.e. "providing, laying and curing of concrete in beam, slab and raft".;