- (1.) Let rejoinder affidavit filed today be taken on record. The petitioner, a proprietorship concern, is an electrical contractor and engaged in the business of execution of electrical works contract within the State of U.P. It is registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and after its repeal, under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
(2.) The case of the petitioner in brief is that it applied for composition of tax as was provided under section 7D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and agreed to pay the trade tax at an agreed rate. In pursuance of section 7D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, the State Government had promulgated a scheme for composition of tax in the year 1993 which was amended in the year 1995 and continued for the subsequent years up to 2006-07. During the periods 2006-07 and 2007-08, the petitioner was granted electrical works contracts by various dealers detailed in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. The petitioner opted for composition in respect of the aforesaid contracts by filing the requisite application for compounding. The application for compounding was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-I, Noida and orders dated 25th of March, 2009 and 8th of March, 2011 were passed for the periods 2006-07 and 2007-08.
(3.) With effect from 1st of January, 2008, the U.P. Trade Tax Act has been repealed and simultaneously the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 was enacted. The latter Act, i.e., U.P. VAT Act, 2008 has analogous provision being section 6 analogous to section 7D of the repealed Act. The petitioner did not apply for composition under the new Act, i.e., the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 as after the 1st of January, 2008 no new contract was awarded and the existing contracts for electrical works were in progress. The petitioner was ultimately assessed to tax for the assessing year 2008-09 under the U.P. VAT Act, vide assessment order dated 28th of June, 2012, annexure 6. The assessment order is in respect of two parts. The petitioner is aggrieved with respect of only that part which levies tax at the rate of six percent on the goods brought in the State of U.P. exceeding the value more than five percent of total receipts of the payment. The contention is that in compounding scheme as it was in existence in the relevant assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 under which the petitioner had filed the application for composition of tax. There was no such condition restricting the import of goods up to five percent of the contract amount. The said condition came to be in existence subsequently after the commencement of U.P. VAT Act which also envisages the composition of tax under section 6 thereof.;