1998 (11) TMI 657

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o tax levied on the assessee for those years. 2. I have heard B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the Commissioner and R. R. Agarwal and K. M. L. Hajela, learned Counsel for the respondents in S.T.R. Nos. 996 and 998 of 1980, respectively. 3. The dealer respondent had executed some contract at Saharanpur and by an assessment order under Section 7, it was assessed to sales tax amounting to ₹ 9250/- on a turnover of ₹ 75,000/- for Assessment Year 1979-80. For the Assessment Year 1980-81, an assessment order dated 16lh February, 1986 was passed levying a tax of ₹ 10,400/-. Subsequently on an application of the dealer, identical orders dated 14th October, 1985 were passed whereby in exercise of powers under Section 22....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....contract under which the goods were supplied alongwith the construction of the building. The Tribunal seems to have taken the view that it was an indivisible works contract and, therefore, the turnover, if any, was not taxable and on this basis it held that the order under Section 10-B cannot be said to be justified. It, therefore, passed the orders, as aforesaid. It has stated in the operative order that, the tax of ₹ 9250/- and ₹ 10,400/- levied by the Dy. Commissioner is set aside. 4. As is evident, the assessee's appeal was against the order under Section 10-B passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Executive) setting aside the orders passed by the assessing officer under Section 22 of the Act on the ground that there was no mi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner has not raised any point of law, as agitated above. The questions stated to be involved have been formulated in the revision petition as under : (i) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Member Sales Tax Tribunal were legally justified to allow the appeal instead of remanding the case since the opposite party dealer had not appeared either before the assessing authority or before the Deputy Commissioner (Executive) Sales Tax, Saharanpur Range, Saharanpur or had produced record for examination before the Tribunal itself ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified in according the relief to the dealer in respect of the turnover wh....