- (1.) S. N. TIWARI, J. Rejoinder affidavit filed today.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the exchange of affidavits and in accordance with the Rules of court we dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated March 29, 1993 (annexure 6 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the petitioner's claim for exemption on washable apron constructed by the petitioner, hence claiming exemption under the composition scheme. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The case of the petitioner is that in the relevant assessment years in question the petitioner has executed various contracts of civil nature including the contract awarded by the Railways for the construction of washable apron and its heavy repairs. For the construction of washable apron, according to the petitioner, it has to prepare a cement concrete floor in between two railway lines at the railway platforms, which is also clear from the specification of the work. Since it is nothing but a construction of a cement concrete floor for removing the night soil and others refuse, hence the work is of civil nature and constitutes to be a civil contract.
(3.) THE State Government imposed a composition scheme under section 7-D of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, which is annexed as annexure 4 to the writ petition. Under this scheme the petitioner applied and the respondents accepted the said application in respect to the other work but did not accept it relating to the construction of washable apron, hence the claim of the petitioner was rejected to that extent. THE contention is that the concerned respondent-authority did not apply its mind in constructing the contract and hence committed illegality in rejecting the same. THE Commissioner's circular dated May 21, 1992 is annexed as annexure 8 to the writ petition. THE said circular records that only those works which are specifically mentioned in the composition scheme qualify for composition and to be constitute to be a civil contract. In other words it is exhaustive and not illustrative. Learned Standing Counsel contended that no illegality has been committed by the respondent-authorities as construction of washable apron does not fall under the scheme and hence, has been rightly rejected. THE reference to the Commissioner's circular, as aforesaid, is also relied in the counter-affidavit. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we find that the notification dated April 27, 1987, issued under section 3-F of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 under the Schedule at Sl. No. 6 reads as follows : " 6. Civil works like construction of buildings, bridges, roads, dams, barrages and seaways, spillways and diversions. ";