2019 (11) TMI 387

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....991-92 (U.P.) respectively. By that order, the Tribunal has dismissed three appeals filed by the assessee and thus confirmed the order of the first appeal authority, that had partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and remitted the matter to the assessing authority. 2. It is also on record that, during the pendency of the these revisions, the proceedings in remand had been concluded and those have given rise to separate revisions, which will be dealt with by separate orders. 3. Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the applicantassessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party-revenue. 4. The present revision has been pressed on the following question of law: "Whether the reasoning and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... especially to the effect that the goods giving rise to the dispute were imported by the assessee solely for the purposes of execution of works contract. However, the first appeal authority remitted the matter to the assessing authority on other issues. 9. Before the Tribunal, the assessee had again contended that the import of goods was occasioned by the electrical works contract awarded to it and such goods had been imported only for successful execution of such contracts. Reliance was also placed on instances where goods had been imported directly at the works site. Also, other material was relied upon by the assessee that there was only one sale or, in any case, the purchase made was for the purpose of execution of works contract. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te sales alone, it may render the Rule largely redundant, inasmuch as a transaction of inter-state sale made inside the state of U.P. would never be referable to any works contract being executed inside the state of U.P. A works contract being executed outside the state of U.P. may never qualify for assessment inside the state of U.P. in the context of Rule 9(1)(e) of the Rules. The only other situation where the Rule may remain functional may be of sale in transit in pursuance of a works contract being executed inside the State of U.P. However, there does not appear any reason or circumstance to limit the applicability of the Rule to that species of interstate sale transactions alone. 21. Therefore, merely because there was no pri....