TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tee to deduct tax from the payment made to the contractor. In other words, it can be concluded that the valuable consideration on which the tax is to be imposed is what the contractor receives from the contractee and not what the sub-contractor receives from the contractee. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Skyline Constructions and Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Authority for Advance Ruling reported as (2011) 37 VST 290 (Karn) has held that, "we are of the opinion that the question of law formulated hereinabove is to be held that the consideration for execution of works contract executed refers to consideration received by the principal contractor and does not include the consideration received and paid to the subcontractor." Further, the Hon'ble Haryana Tax Tribunal in the case reported as (2009) 34 PHT 344 (HTT) (FN Tribunal) in para 21 has categorically stated that, "The contractee's liability to deduct tax on the total valuable consideration for the execution of whole contract which he pays to the contractor is absolute and cannot be diluted by the act of subcontracting". In other words it can be stated that a contractor remains a contractor even in respect of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee received two work orders, i.e., one from the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), Faridabad for renovation/ face lifting of Regional Office Building of ESIC and another for Special Repair Work of Staff Quarters, Sector 29, Faridabad from Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) for Rs. 4,57,98,984/- and Rs. 20,65,078/-, respectively. Respondent No.1 gave sub-contract of Rs. 4,05,46,280/- to various sub-contractors for execution of the same and deducted TDS of Rs. 16,21,240/- and deposited the same into Government treasury. The consideration amount of Rs. 73,17,782/- was retained by the assessee and no amount of tax was paid on this amount. Respondent No.1 made payments of Rs. 4,05,46,280/- on account of execution of above said two work contracts to the sub-contractors. However, the contractee did not deduct the tax at source from the payments made to respondent No.1. But respondent No.1 deducted TDS @ 4% from the payments made to the sub-contractors during the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 and paid the same to the Assessing Authority. The Assessing Authority vide order dated 29.3.2013 (Annexure A-1) framed the assessment besides levying tax on Rs. 73,17,782/- on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate-Collector (L.A.) v. Katiji N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil." 6. It was further noticed by the Apex Court in R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 892 as under:- ".....It is not necessary at this stage to discuss each and every judgment cited before us for the simple reason that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not lay down any standard or objective test. The test of "sufficient cause" is purely an individualistic test. It is not an objective test. Therefore, no two cases can be treated alike. The statute of limitation has left the concept of "sufficient cause" delightfully undefined, thereby leaving to the Court a well-intentioned discretion to decide the individual cases whether circumstances exist establis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der was despatched on 1.5.2017 to the department and the same was put up for examination before the officers at Head Office. During the said process, the file got misplaced and could not be traced. However, the Refund Committee at Head Office on 19.5.2018 while examining the case of another dealer M/s JMC Projects Ltd., Gurgaon ordered that the order passed by the Tribunal in M/s Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. should be assailed in the High Court. Thereafter, the copy of the order dated 19.4.2017 was applied before the Tribunal which was received by the appellant on 20.6.2018. The final proposal to file appeal was approved by the Commissioner on 2.7.2018. After getting permission from the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana on 26.7.2018, the matter was sent to the office of Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (ST), Faridabad for filing the appeal. Finally, the appeal was filed on 18.9.2018 in this Court. Therefore, the appeal could not be filed in time. It was urged that the delay, if any, has occurred in the aforesaid circumstances in filing the appeal before this Court. Learned State counsel further argued that the delay was unintentional and due to the circumstances beyond ....