Labour deduction claim fails where supporting records are absent and the dispute raises no substantial question of law.

Deduction for labour and incidental charges in a tyre retreading division was ? need English. The claim failed because the assessee did not produce supporting documents to show that the expenditure represented labour-related or otherwise permissible deductions under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The rejection was treated as a factual determination based on appreciation of evidence, and the concurrent findings of the lower authorities were upheld. As the dispute turned only on absence of proof and no substantial question of law arose, revision interference was not warranted and the deduction claim remained disallowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of labour and incidental charges claimed in the tyre retreading division under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and whether the disallowance of such claim gave rise to a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The claim for deduction was based on alleged establishment charges said to represent labour-related payments such as provident fund and other incidental expenses. The authorities below found that the assessee had not produced supporting documents to substantiate that the expenditure was attributable to labour or permissible deductions. The refusal to allow the deduction therefore rested on non-production of proof and appreciation of facts, and the concurrent findings of the lower authorities were upheld. The absence of documentary support made the claim untenable, and the issue did not involve a legal error warranting interference in revision.

Conclusion: The deduction claim was rightly rejected and the revision failed, as no substantial question of law arose.

Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed because the disallowance of the claimed labour-related deduction was a factual determination supported by the record and did not justify interference.

Ratio Decidendi: A deduction claim under the works contract provisions cannot be allowed in the absence of supporting material, and a revision will not lie where the grievance turns only on concurrent factual findings without a substantial question of law.

---