1997 (3) TMI 594

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under section 5, at every time, including advance payments, and remit it to the Government within seven days from the date of such deduction in the prescribed manner". As per the provision then stood, in the case of works contract, every awarder shall deduct tax due under clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 5, from the payment by the awarder at every time including the advance payment and remitted to the Government. Clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 5 states that in the case of transfer of goods involved in the execution of works contract where transfer is in the form of goods at the rates and at the points specified against such goods in the First, Second or Fifth Schedule. Sub-clause (iv) of section 5 sets out the rates o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or striking down sub-section (7B). It was further held that any deduction and payment made, of tax due from a contractor, who has not opted for payment at the compounded rate is subject to adjustment at the final assessment that has to be made on him. In any case, rule 22A(3) affords the contractor an option and an opportunity to avoid the alleged offensive deduction by paying the tax regularly in accordance with the rules. Ultimately the learned judge found nothing in sub-section (7B) justifies the various apprehensions voiced by the petitioners. Thus the original petitions challenging the said provision were dismissed. 3.. A division bench of this court in Builders Association of India v. State of Kerala [1995] 98 STC 490; (1995) KL....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e judgment that in the field of taxation, the legislature must be allowed greater play in the joints as it is called is to be applied. Allowance must also be made for "trial and error" by the Legislature as has been held approving the view in R.K. Garg v. Union of India [1982] 133 ITR 239 (SC) (1981) 4 SCC 675. 4.. Similar provision, viz., section 8D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was upheld in V.K. Singhal v. State of U.P. [1995] 97 STC 355 (All). The Division Bench held that total number of deductions comes to about 17. Neither the contractor nor the contractee are the assessing authorities. It would be very difficult for the contractee to examine and for the contractor to specify all the deductions at the stage of intermediate bills.....