Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) PRESENT six revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. 1 Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated March 9, 2004 relating to the assessment years 1989 -90, 1990 -91, 1992 -93, 1993 -94, 1994 - 95 and 1995 -96 by which the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied under Section 8D(6) of the Act.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case giving rise to the present revisions are that the 2 dealer -opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") was engaged in the business of purchases and sales of truck chassis. During the years under consideration, the dealer had purchased body from various persons and got it mounted over the chassis. The assessing authority levied the penalty under Section 8D(6) of the Act on the ground that the dealer had got the body constructed over the chassis from the contractor under the works contract and, therefore, while making the payment to the contractor should have deducted four per cent and should have deposited the same in the State treasury as required under Section 8D(1) of the Act. Since the dealer had not complied with the provisions of Section 8D(1) and had not made deduction from the payment to the contractor inasmuch as not deposited the amount with the State Treasury, the dealer was held liable for penalty under Section 8D(6) of the Act. The claim of the dealer was that it had purchased body and had not got the body constructed over the chassis under the works contract and, therefore, the provisions of Section 8D(1) of the Act was not applicable. This plea of the dealer was not accepted by the assessing authority. Being aggrieved by the penalty orders passed under Section 8D(6) of the Act, the dealer filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Agra. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Agra vide order dated March 10, 2002 dismissed all the appeals. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Agra, dealer filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed all the appeals and set aside the penalty. The Tribunal held that the dealer had purchased the body and had not got it constructed over the chassis, under the works contract and, therefore, the provisions of Section 8D(1) of the Act was not applicable. Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Sri R.R. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the dealer -opposite party.
(3.) THE learned Standing Counsel submitted that the body was got constructed over the chassis through the contractor and in this regard the contract was a composite indivisible contract for the supply of material and labour. Since it was constructed over the chassis, the contract was in the nature of works contract. He submitted that the contract being in the nature of works contract, the dealer was under the obligation to deduct the tax from the payment to the contractor.;