2010 (2) TMI 1075

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....act within the Sasaram Circle, and has assessed it to tax under the Act: (i) Order dated February 7, 2006 (annexures 8 series), with respect to the financial year 2002-2003. (ii) Order dated February 7, 2006 (annexures 8 series), with respect to the financial year 2003-2004. (iii) And the order dated February 7, 2006 (annexures 8 series), with respect to the financial year 2004-05. According to the writ petition, Somdatt Builders Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, "the main contractor"), has been awarded contract for laying down and/or strengthening, widening, and improvement of National highway by the National High Way Authority, Government of India. The main contractor has awarded sub-contract of its work to the petitioner-comp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-contractor cannot be made liable. He relies on the following reported judgments: (i) State of Andhra Pradesh v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2008] 17 VST 1 (SC); [2008] 9 SCC 191. (ii) Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. v. Union of India [1989] 75 STC 211 (Patna). The learned Government counsel submits that the petitioner did not file returns before the learned assessing officer in spite of repeated opportunities except for one quarter for the financial year 2002-03. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the petitioner is a registered contractor under the provisions of the Act. It further appears that he has executed works contract in the Sasaram Circle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er. On a perusal of the impugned orders, it is evident that the learned assessing officer acted with full fairness, giving repeated opportunities to the petitioner to produce materials and documents in support of its case and was driven to the course of best judgment assessment. As stated above, the petitioner has/had the audacity of not submitting its returns except for one quarter and that too showing gross turnover as nil. We are of the view that the learned assessing officer acted with great care and caution in determining the taxable turnover of the petitioner and has reached the conclusions which are essentially in the domain of facts. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, we do not find it possible to examine the same. We entirely ....