Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) Petitioner is a contractor and had been awarded a contract by M/s RAVE Entertainment Private Limited, Kanpur for electrification in RAVE 3, which was executed during the assessment year 2001-02. According to the petitioner. Contract was a composite contract for electrification in the multiplex, which included the supply and installation of goods for electrification. petitioner is a registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, Petitioner is liable to tax under Section 3-F of the Act on the value of the goods involved in the execution of she works contract.
(2.) The State Government in exercise of powers under Section 7-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as Act") issued a compounding Scheme for the electrical nature of contract for the payment of compounding fee in lump sum in lieu of tax payable. The petitioner moved an application under compounding scheme, for the aforesaid contract with the concerned authorities alongwith cop of the contract dated 13.03 2001. Deputy Commissioner '(Assessment)-14. Trade Tax, Kanpur accepted the compounding application on, 28.02.2003. In the order it has been stated that the application was moved alongwith the copy of the Contract and the total payment received during the year under consideration was Rs.77.48.650 on which a sum of Rs.3.37,292/- was deducted as TDS. It has been observed that the application fall within the electrical contract compounding scheme and thus after the enquiry/examination it is accepted.
(3.) The Deputy Commissioner (Assessment)-14, Trade Tax. Kanpur issued notice under Section 21 for the assessment year 2001-02 and also issued notice under Section 7-D of the L.P. Trade Tax Act for the cancellation of the order agreement under Section 7-D of the Act. In the notice it was alleged that on the perusal of the agreement it was found that apart from the execution of electrical contract, they have also executed a contract for TV/Telephone Network, which does not fall under; the electric contract compounding scheme. It appears that in reply to the earlier notice. the petitioner filed a certificate of the contracted, M/s RAVE Entertainment Private Limited, Kanpur. in which it was stated that the alleged TV Telephone Network has been done by some other party but in the notice it is alleged that from the certificate if is not clear that the petitioner had not carried on the work and by which it was carried on. It has also been alleged that under the agreement the payment has been received by the petitioner. The petitioner field the present writ petition challenging the notice issued under Section 7-D of the Act and the notice issued under Section 21 of the Act. This court has asked the learned Standing Counsel to file the counter affidavit vide order dated 20.09.2004. Counter affidavit ahs been filed annexing the copy of the order 29.09.2004 passed under Section 7-D of the Act by which earlier order dated 28.02.2003 has been cancelled and order passed under Section 21 of the Act by which the tax has been imposed on the turn over of Rs. 69,80,000/- @ 10%. Petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit and also filed amendment application challenging the aforesaid two orders, annexed along with counter affidavit. The amendment application has been allowed vide order dated 25.04.2005 and the petitioner was permitted to incorporate the amendment. In this view of the matter, in the present writ petition the notice under Section 7-D and notice under Section 21 of the Act and the subsequent order dated 29.09.2004 passed under Section 7-D of the Act and assessment orders dated 30.09.2004 passed under Section 21 of the Act have been challenged.;