YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) Service upon the assessee is deemed to be sufficient in light of the office report dated 29 August 2017.
(3.) This revision by the Department is preferred against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 22 September 2006 which has accepted that the purchase of goods which were utilized in the execution of a works contract in the State of U.P. were referable to Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and therefore not exigible to tax under the 1948 Act. The Tribunal has accepted the explanation that the goods which had been purchased at Delhi were meant for being utilized in execution of the works contract. The contention of the Department was (and which has also been reiterated before this Court) that the movement of the goods from Delhi to Noida was a stock transfer referable to Section 6 A and therefore the benefit of Sections 3, 4 and 5 could not be accorded.;