TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Vs. Commissioner of Trade/Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow), which is reproduced hereinafter:- "1. The revisionist, herein, is a works contractor, who is aggrieved by the order of the authorities under the Act, as affirmed by the order of the Tribunal, in so far as the payment made towards the labour charges have been disallowed deduction and only 30% deduction for the purpose has been permitted. The matter pertains to the assessment year 2010-2011. Reliance is placed upon Rule-9 of The Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2008. 2. Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the assessee has invited attention of the Court to Rule-9 of the VAT Rules. Rule-9(1) (d) and 9(3) are relevant and thus reproduced:- "Ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted at the rate percentages, given in column 3 against the entry in column 2 of the table, of the amount received or receivable". 3. Learned Counsel, with reference to Rule-9 (1)(d) contends that the amount representing the value of service and labour and profit is liable to be deducted if it is included in gross turnover while determining the taxable turnover of sale of such goods. It is contended that such benefit can be granted if it is shown separately, as has been done herein. Submission is that only in its absence or where necessary ingredients to attract sub Rule-(3) exists on record that benefit under rule 9(1)(d) can be denied. It is contended that there is no justification reflected in the orders of the authority, which m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se notice by contending that separate work orders/ bills have been issued and after appropriating the amount incurred towards the earth work and labour work, the books of account have been drawn, clearly segregating the amount payable in the relevant head. From the order passed by the assessing authority, this court finds that there is no finding returned in the order to discard the books of account of the assessee, holding that accounts maintained by the dealer are not worthy of credence or that the amount payable towards the labour has not been separately shown. The first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal have merely dittoed the opinion expressed by the assessing authority and 30% amount claimed as labour charges alone have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... service of labour, the authorities were not justified in denying the benefit admissible to the assessee under Rule-9(1)(d) of the Rules. The Tribunal in such circumstances, would examine the matter afresh, keeping in view the provisions of Rule-9 and in light of the observations made above. 11. The second question posed for consideration in this revision is also answered by holding that in the absence of any material existing on record showing purchase of stone (Khanda) of Rs. 40,00,000/-, the authorities would not be justified in including such amount in the turnover merely for the reason that such purchases were made in the previous years. The figures shown for the current year along are relevant for such purposes. 12. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 9(3) of The Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2008. 5. Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, has vehemently argued that 30% towards labour charges was entitled to be appropriated from the works contract, quantum whereof was limited Rs. 28,83,65,107/-, and as per him, the component of labour charge amounting to Rs. 12,20,75,477/- ought to have been entirely excluded from the quantum of works contract, as no transfer of goods to that extent had taken place. According to the revisionist, 30% amount towards labour charges was liable to have been appropriated from the works contract valued at Rs. 28,83,65,107/-, and the entire labour charges separately quantified at Rs. 12,20,75,477/- was liable to have been o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to show the basis for such further categorization of work into one constituting labour work, and the other constituting works contract, which also included labour component, the authorities cannot be said to have acted in an unjustified manner in discarding the assessee's claim in that regard. In absence of any material brought on record to the contrary, the finding of the Tribunal that remainder i.e. after excluding the earthwork, entire contract constitutes the works contract and that 30% thereof was liable to be appropriated towards labour charge is based upon correct interpretation of Rule 9(3) and the grievance of assessee in that regard cannot be accepted. The question posed for consideration in that regard is answered by holdin....