https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221955 The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a private limited company engaged in Civil and Electrical Works Contract, in a case challenging the imposition of State Development Tax under Rule 41(8) of the U.P Trade Tax Act. The Court held that contractors opting for compounding under section 7-D of the Act are not liable to pay State Development Tax, citing a previous Division Bench decision. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, modifying the assessment order to exclude the State Development Tax component, providing relief to the petitioner. en-us Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2013 20:47:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221955 The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a private limited company engaged in Civil and Electrical Works Contract, in a case challenging the imposition of State Development Tax under Rule 41(8) of the U.P Trade Tax Act. The Court held that contractors opting for compounding under section 7-D of the Act are not liable to pay State Development Tax, citing a previous Division Bench decision. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, modifying the assessment order to exclude the State Development Tax component, providing relief to the petitioner. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221955