NATHPA JHAKRI JT VENTURE Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8468 OF 1997.

(2.) As was contended before the High Court, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that provision for compulsory deduction from payment to works contractor does not provide for exclusion of cases where the transaction may not amount to a sale at all and there is no mechanism by which the contractor can claim that a transaction does not amount to sale so that no deductions may be made under the aforesaid provision. It is also submitted that the recovery is on events which do not attract tax at all, for example, Section 6 of the Act, which is the charging section, excludes from taxable turn over, the turn over of a dealer on sales to any undertaking supplying electrical energy to the public under a licence or sanction granted under the relevant law of goods for use by it in the generation or distribution of such energy subject to production of a duly signed form by an authorised officer in that regard and the Rule provides for deduction of 4 per cent amount on all payments in similar terms to deduct an amount equal to 4 per cent. The said provisions in Section 12-A and Rule 31-A are identical to those considered by this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. State of Orissa, 2000 (2) Scale 98 : (2000 AIR SCW 708). The relevant portion of Section 13-AA of the Orissa Sales Tax Act considered by this Court in Steel Authority of India (supra) and Section 12-A of the Act is as under :-

(3.) However, Shri B. Dutta, the learned senior advocate appearing for the State, very valiantly emboldened himself to submit that he can distinguish the decision of this Court in Steel Authority of India case (2000 AIR SCW 708) (supra) and stated that the provisions of Section 13-AA and Section 12-A are not in pari materia.