Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. - (1.) The present set of revisions have been filed by the assessee against the common order dated 12.9.2018 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Noida Bench in two sets of cross-appeals filed before the Tribunal. Details of the same are as below: JUDGEMENT_3_LAWS(ALL)2_2019_1.html
(2.) Since the facts and circumstances in the above noted revisions are similar and/or inter-connected, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order. The present revisions were entertained on the following question of law: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal dis-entitling the revisionist to the benefit of Rule 9(1)(e) of the U.P.V.A.T. Rules is legally sustainable on the reasoning that the goods in question were not specified in the original works contract, though according to the Tribunal, the goods were brought inside the State of U.P. by way of inter-state purchase for execution of the works contract by the assessee?"
(3.) Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.;