TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal) in S.A. No.1111 of 2001-02 filed by the Department whereby the matter was remanded to the Sales Tax Officer (STO) for re-examining the issue concerning labour and service charges and amount allegedly received as hire charges by the Assessee for the year 1996-97. 3. While admitting the present revision petition on 3rd March 2005, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order and the consequential proceedings as per notice dated 18th March, 2004. That interim order has continued. 4. The following questions are framed for consideration by this Court: "(a) Whether in the factual position coupled with settled position of law in the matter, the Tribunal is correct to hold that the deductions towards labour and service charge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....001. Thereafter, the Petitioner applied for refund under Section 14 of the OST Act. At that stage, the State filed Second Appeal before the Tribunal challenging the dismissal order passed by the ACST. 7. On two aspects in the impugned order, the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the STO. First, on the issue of labour and service charges, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it would be judicious and reasonable to limit the labour and service charges to 34% of the gross bills received towards execution of the works contract. Secondly, for the first time, State raised an additional ground before the Tribunal regarding alleged receipt of Rs. 1.34 Crores by the Petitioner towards hire charges of equipments and machinery. Although the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduced by the Petitioner-Assessee were accepted as such both by the STO as well as the ACST. They examined the books of account thoroughly and found that the amounts were properly accounted for. In fact, the STO also noted that the Assessee had produced "Labour payment register, vouchers, Cash book, muster rolls and copies of the trial balance (audited) for the year 1996-97." With both the STO and the ACST having accepted the books of account produced by the Assessee without any reservation, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to have limited the labour and service charges to 34%. The said conclusion of the Tribunal is based on mistaken notion of what Clause VII (e) of the agreement stood for. 11. Accordingly, Question No.(a) is answere....