Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the Revenue aggrieved by the dated 14.03.2005 passed by the learned Single Member of the Tax Board in Appeal No. 77/2004/Jodhpur "Commercial Taxes Officer, Works Contract & Leasing Tax, Jodhpur v. M/s. Chagni Ram Gehlot, Jodhpur" dismissing the appeal of the Revenue filed against the order dated 16.07.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, who allowed the appeal of the Assessee preferred against the order dated 26.03.2003 passed by the Assessing Authority.
(2.) THE learned Tax Board in its impugned order dated 14.03.2005, while upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur dated 16.07.2003, held as under: - - "We are, therefore, of the view that the prohibition contained in Condition No. 4 of not using the declaration form to purchase goods involved in the execution of a works contract, is only applicable to purchases to be made within the State under various provisions of the RST Act. In this view of the matter, the correct interpretation the words "declaration forms" used in Condition No. 4 of the aforesaid Notification would be "declaration forms under the RST Act." It is thus very clear that the learned AA committed error in levying additional tax along with interest on the value of goods purchased by the respondents against Form 'C' under the provisions of the CST Act, as by doing so, no violation of Condition No. 4 of the Notification aforesaid was caused by the respondents under the law." The learned counsel Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur appearing for the Revenue fairly submitted that the controversy involved in the present revision petition has been decided by the co -ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer, Works Contract & Leasing Tax, Commercial Taxes, Ajmer v. M/s. Jatan Construction Pvt. Ltd., Kar Bhawan Ka Pass, Todarmal Marg, Ajmer [S.B. Salex Tax Revision Petition No. 67/2006, decided on 22.08.2013].
(3.) THE relevant observations of the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid case is quoted herein below for ready reference: - - "8. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as also the notification. In my view, it would be fruitful to reproduce the notification dt. 28/04/1993, bearing No. 898, which provides as under: - - "F. 4(7) FDBR. IV/92 -14 dated 28.4.1993, pub. 30.4.1993 S.O. 29. - -In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 4(2), RST Act, 1954, read with rule 10B, RST Rules, 1955 and in supersession of this department notfn. No. F. 4(7)/FDGr. IV/92/79 dated 4.3.1992 [S. No. 872], the State Govt. hereby exempted from tax the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of works contracts relating to buildings, bridges, dams, roads and canals on the following conditions, namely: - - 1. That the contractor undertakes to pay exemption fee @ 1% on the total value of such contract; 2. That the contractor holds a valid certificate of exemption for such contract; 3. That such contract is awarded (date of despatch of acceptance of the contract) after the date of publication of this notfn in the Official Gazette; 4. That the contractor shall not be entitled to use declaration forms to purchase goods without paying tax or paying tax at concessional rate of tax, for being used in the execution of such contract; and;