2017 (2) TMI 1210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 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:- "Rule 9. Determination of turnover of sale of goods involved in the execution of a works contract- (1) Subject to other provisions of these rules, the tax on turnover of sale of goods where such sale is affected by way of transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a work contract shall be computed on the taxable turnover of sale of ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ended 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 may justify discrediting the figures disclosed in the Books of Account by the assessee so as to warrant having recourse to sub Rule (3) of Rule-9. 4. It is also contended on behalf of the assessee that it had not purchased stone (Khanda) and that addition to its turnover by Rs. 40,00,000/- was without any basis. It is stated that merely because such purchases were made in previous years would not be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at 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 held admissible for deduction. 8. From the reading of the Rule, it is apparent that 20% amount towards labour charges could be held admissible for deduction, by virtue of Rule-9(3) of the Rules, in a case where the amount payable towards labour charges are not separately shown or that the accounts maintained by the dealer are not worthy of credence. 20% deduction would be admissible upon the total value of the contract, if....