- (1.) Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 7th June, 1994 for the assessment year 1976-77 and 77-78 both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
(2.) Tribunal has decided both the appeals for both the assessment years by common order. Since in both the revisions common questions are involved, same are being disposed of by common order.
(3.) Brief facts giving rise to the present revisions are that the applicant is a Government of India enterprises and is controlled by the Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries, New Delhi. Applicant was involved in executing the contracts in the nature of works contract and supply etc. Applicant head office is at New Delhi. During the years under consideration, applicant had executed five contracts executed between the Head Office of the applicant and five different companies, namely, M/s Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills, Bisalpur, Pilibhit, M/s Kian Sahkari Chini Mills, Badaun, M/s Bharat Pumps Compressors Limited, Naini, Allahabad, U.P. State Electricity Board, Panki, Kanpur, Northern Railway, Transmission Line, Aligarh. All the contracts were claimed to be works contracts. It was claimed that 'with M/s Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills, Bisalpur, Badaun two contracts were for designing, manufacturing, supplying, erections and commissioning of sugar mill plant. The contract with M/s Bharat Pumps Compressors Limited, Naini, Allahabad was for erecting, testing, commissioning of plant and machinery. The contract with U.P. State Electricity Board, Panki, Kanpur was for erection, and commissioning of Panki Coal Handling Project and Panki Ash Handling Plant. The contract with Northern Railway, Aligarh was for erection of transmission line. It was claimed that all the contracts were a composite, indivisible contracts being turn-key contract. However, it was submitted that the materials were supplied from outside the State of U.P. directly at the site of the various parties where they were used in the commissioning, fabrication and erection of the plant. It was submitted that such supplies were either directly by the Head Office, Delhi or by the vendors, who were asked to dispatch the goods at the site and the transfers were made by way of transfer of documents. Submission was that there was no intra-State sales of the material. Assessing authority had not accepted both the aforesaid pleas of the applicant. Assessing authority held that in the contracts there were separate stipulation of price for the supply of the materials and for the labour charges and therefore, the contracts were divisible contracts for the labour and material and were not the works contracts. With regard to the second submission, assessing authority held that no evidence had been adduced to prove that the goods were supplied by transfer of documents. According to the assessing authority goods were transferred after taking the delivery inside the State of U.P. Therefore, there were intra-State sales. First appeals filed by the applicant were dismissed. Applicant filed two second appeals before the Tribunal, which were also dismissed.;