- (1.) Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred 10 as 'Act' ) is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 22.01.2005 for the assessment year 2000-01 under U.P. Trade Tax Act
(2.) Applicant is a civil contractor. Applicant claimed that it had been awarded contract by issuing work order/letter dated 21.06.2000, which was effective from 01.04.2000, by M/s Orient Ceramics and Industries Limited, Industrial Area. Sikandarabad for the execution of the work of civil nature mentioned in Annexure-A of the work order. Applicant had executed the works as per the work order during the year under consideration and received the payment at Rs. 2,63,61,632.12p, Applicant applied under the compounding scheme introduced by the State Government vide G.O. No. Vidhi-1(3)Civil Sakarm Sanvida (2000-2001)-761/Trade Tax, Lucknow dated 10.08.2000 for the assessment year 2000-01 under Section 7-D of the Act. Under Clause (3) of the aforesaid Government Order compounding was admissible only to the extent of 5% of the goods imported from outside the State of U.P. and balance was subject to regular assessment. State Government has also issued another Government Order No. Vidhi 1(3)Civil Sakarm Sanvida (2000-2001)-848/Trade Tax, Lucknow dated 24.08 2000 in which it has been stated that in case where the contractor had furnished the tender keeping in view the compounding scheme for the assessment year 1999-2000 and had worked according to that tender in subsequent year or the work would have been done alter the acceptance of the tender then in those cases compounding scheme as prevalent for the year 1999-2000 would be applicable. It may be mentioned here that in the compounding scheme for the assessment year 1999-2000 there was no condition like Clause (3) and the compounding was applicable on the entire quantity of the material imported and there was no restriction of 5%.
(3.) Before the assessing authority when the application under Section 7-D of the Act was under consideration the applicant submitted that compounding scheme for the assessment year 1999-2000 would be made applicable, inasmuch as the work order dated 21.06.2000 effective from 1.04.2000 was issued keeping in view the compounding scheme for the assessment year 1999-2000. Assessing authority held that the applicant had not furnished any evidence or certificate by which the benefit of the circular dated 24.08.2000 would be given. However, assessing authority had observed that the work order was given on 21.10.2000 hence the benefit in respect of the payment received prior to 10.08.2000 should be given. Assessing authority observed that prior to 10.08.2000 payment received was Rs. 34,87,896.14p. and the balance payment of Rs. 1.85 crore was received after 21.08.2000 accordingly, observed that the maximum payment was made after 21.08.2000. Assessing authority further observed that the applicant had not provided any details of the goods imported prior to 10.08.2000 and subsequent to 10.08.2000 and therefore, by way of best judgment assessment, goods imported prior to 10.08.2000 had been estimated, Being aggrieved by the order, applicant filed appeal before the Joint commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated 11.06.2003 allowed the appeal and held that on the entire work compounding scheme for the year 1999-2000 would be applicable. According to the first appellate authority since the order had been obtained prior to 40.08.2000, therefore, for the entire work order, compounding scheme for the assessment year 1999-2000 would be applicable. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal and remanded back the matter to the assessing authority. Tribunal held that compounding has been claimed and accepted on the basis of the rate contract letter dated 21.06.2000, which can not be said to be the contract Tribunal has referred a letter dated 17.08.2000 written by M/s Orient Ceramics and Industries Limited, Industrial Area, Sikandarabad and on the basis of the said letter it has been inferred that the applicant had entered into a different civil contract for a different period and time to time work order have been issued. It has also been observed that merely because the work contract has been executed initially, the claim of the applicant can not be accepted and the first appellate authority has erred in allowing the claim Tribunal however, remanded back the matter to the assessing authority to consider the matter afresh.;