TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (8) TMI 573
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e applicant entered into a contract for design supply, installation, testing, commissioning and maintenance of L.P.G. monitoring system with the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Indian Oil Corporation Limited in U.P. for execution of works contract. The applicant has established an office at 113/20, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. The applicant is a registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. During the course of assessment proceedings under section 7 of the Act, the applicant disclosed total payment at Rs. 53,82,309.25. Admittedly, the applicant has made purchases from outside the State of U.P. for Rs. 43,19,560. The assessing authority vide order dated February 28, 2002 passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rate of tax, it was also contended that the goods which have been used in the execution of works contract, were the imported goods, therefore, the transactions being in the course of inter-State, covered under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, were liable to be excluded under section 3F(2) of the Act. It was claimed that the goods imported were the electrical goods. The assessing authority held that the goods imported were the cables, terminal unit, explosion proof, heater, panels, transmitter, etc., and not the electrical goods and liable to tax at 10 per cent. In respect of the claim of deduction relating to the imported goods being covered under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, the assessing authority he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances, it was not open to the assessing officer to refuse the adjudication of the claim of the applicant in this respect on the ground that such issue has not been raised earlier and under section 22 of the Act, the said claim cannot be examined. He submitted that the order of the Tribunal confirming the view of the assessing officer, is wholly unjustified. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that in the appellate order dated July 3, 2004 only argument of the applicant has been referred and there was no specific direction to the assessing officer to examine the claim of deduction of transaction covered under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act. He submitted that for the claim of deduction under section 3F(2) of the A....