TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1248
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tax assessed on 'works contract'. However, on the main issue, whether the constructions raised by the assessee were by way of execution of 'works contract', the finding has been returned in the affirmative i.e. against the assessee. 3. Similar position prevails in other revisions connected to the present revision. Some of those revisions have been filed by other assessees. However, learned Senior Counsel for the assessee stated, the issue involved in all cases is one and the same. Also, in certain other cases, the Tribunal has taken the opposite stand i.e. in favour of the assessee. Thus, Sales/Trade Tax Revision Nos. 671 of 2013, 207 of 2013, 208 of 2013, 209 of 2013, 210 of 2013 have been filed by the revenue, raising the same issue (from the other perspective). Learned Standing Counsel has pointed out, those revisions (filed by the State), had arisen prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Larsen and Toubro Limited & Anr. vs State of Karnataka & Anr., 2013 NTN (Vol 53) 65 (hereinafter referred to as the 'L&T case'). 4. In such circumstance, all the revisions being decided today came to be tagged. Accordingly, they were heard on various dates intersp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ats were being constructed for prospective buyers. Later, the assessee was visited with assessment proceedings, on that issue. 8. The assessee submitted its reply to the notice and contested the claim of the revenue. Ultimately, the final assessment order for the A.Y. 2010-11 was passed on 31.12.2013, by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 12, NOIDA. As recorded in that order, different number of flats were found carrying the status - 'booked' (on different dates) during that Assessment Year. Those were specified in that assessment order itself. The assessing authority took a view, only 403 out of 681 flats (being constructed by the assessee), were booked by third parties (hereinafter described as 'allottees'). Thus 59% of the flats being constructed by the assessee were treated 'booked' by the allottees/third parties. That percentage of flats has been treated by the assessing authority to be representative and descriptive of the extent of 'works contract' executed by the assessee in the project - 'J.M. Orchid', during the assessment year in question. In proportion to that, the assessing authority then considered the purchase value of goods su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for the assessee has submitted, historically, tax on value of goods incorporation in the execution of 'works contract' fell outside the ambit of the legislatures. Thus, no tax could be imposed treating the same to be sale of goods. Only by virtue of the 46th Constitutional Amendment made and the consequential amendments to the State taxation laws as also to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, 'works contract' came to fall within the ambit of the laws pertaining to levy of tax on sale of goods. Referring to Section 2(au) read with Section 2(ac) of the Act, it has been submitted, for any transaction to fall within the definition of a 'works contract' - for the purpose of taxation under the Act, it must arise under an 'agreement', amongst others to raise constructions, may be of the kind the assessee raised in the present case. Unless that vital requirement of law is first seen - clearly met i.e., unless the constructions are raised pursuant to a prior written agreement, it may never be inferred that such construction had been raised by way of a 'works contract' on behalf of a person other than the land owner. In the present case, undisputedly the assessee i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce in that case, the owner chose to allow another entity to raise constructions over his land, that too under a written agreement, the element of 'works contract' arose, by virtue of the definition of the term 'works contract', as enacted under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and the Maharashtra VAT Act. Both enactments contain the definition of the term 'works contract' as may have been pari materia to the definition of that term given under Section 2(au) of the Act. 14. By way of second limb of the submission thus advanced, it has been urged, unlike Uttar Pradesh, both in the states of Maharashtra and Karnataka, there existed specific enactments regulating the activity of raising constructions of such residential apartments. Thus, in the State of Karnataka, the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KOFA') and in Maharashtra, the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 together with the rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the 'MOFA'), were in force. Refer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tatutory context considered by the Supreme Court in those cases is not existing in the State of U.P., the decisions of the Supreme Court are inapplicable. To that end, reliance has also been placed on another decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Another Vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu and Others (2011) 7 SCC 397, specifically paragraph-14. 17. To bolster his submission further, learned Senior Counsel for the assessee has pressed into service yet another decision of the Supreme Court in M/S Hindustan Shipyard Ltd Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2000 U.P.T.C.-891. Therein, the issue involved was - whether the contract requiring manufacture and delivery of ships was a contract of simple sale or a 'works contract'. Referring to paragraph-6 of the report, it has been urged, for the purpose of inferring existence of a 'work contract' there is no straight jacket formula or a quick witted test available, that may be infallible. In absence of any standard formula, facts and circumstance of each case would have to be examined. Those may make material difference to the conclusion that may be drawn, even in cases that may first seem to be identical, at the superficial leve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the assessee would remain insulated from any tax that the revenue authority seeks to impose, on such transaction. 20. Then, in the context of the Act and the disputes arising within the State of Uttar Pradesh, it has been urged, the test (as is being invoked by learned Senior Counsel for the assessee), in the present case, has been recognised on many occasions. First, in Assotech Realty Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2007 UPTC 797, a division bench of this Court considered a similar Allotment Letter. It was found, despite issuance of such allotment letter, Assotech Realty Pvt. Ltd. remained the owner of the apartment/flats including all constructions raised thereon, till execution of the sale deed and its registration in favour of the allottees. That decision though came to be reversed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No/s. 5624-5625 of 2007 arising out of SLP No. 2237-79 of 2007, vide order dated 03.12.2007, the principle of law laid down by the division bench was neither disapproved nor departed from by the Supreme Court. The Civil Appeal was disposed of on consideration that the issue may be thrashed out in statutory proceedings first, with the further obser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al or evidence. Rather, it is conjectural. Referring to the order of the Tribunal, it has been submitted, the Tribunal has not made any effort to record any finding on that material aspect. In light of the above, it has blindly applied the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Raheja case and L&T case without ascertaining the facts of the case, first. 24. While hearing of the present matter was continuing and it got disrupted for roster considerations, the assessee came to file a Supplementary Affidavit, on 22.01.2023, annexing thereto the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench-II, NOIDA in Second Appeal No. 124 of 2022 (M/S J. M. Housing Ltd. Vs. CTT) for A.Y. 2017-18 (upto 30.06.2017), i.e. in the case of the same assessee. Therein, again, in the context of similar terms of the Allotment Letter, the Tribunal has reasoned that the constructions of residential apartments made by the assessee were not by way of execution of a 'works contract'. As such constructions were not being made on behalf of the allottees. The constructions were found to be raised by the assessee on its own account. 25. On the second question, it has been submitted, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his Court, no binding precedent may have arisen for that reason. The assessee retains a perfect right to challenge the correctness of the findings of the Tribunal as to 10% addition made to the book value of the goods claimed to have been incorporated in the execution of the alleged 'works contract'. 28. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel would submit, much water has flown since the earlier decision of the division bench of this Court in Assotech Realty Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Any doubt that may have existed and any issue that may have been perceived to be open at that stage, no longer survives for consideration in view of the subsequent authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in L&T case, that decision being a decision of a larger bench/three-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Upon answer given to the reference made (specifically as to correctness of the view expressed in the K. Raheja case), the controversy cannot be looked at except through the prism of clarity offered by the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in L&T case. 29. Referring to that decision, learned Standing Counsel would vehemently urge, in the context of 'works contract', in const....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uctions were raised in accordance thereto, the 'agreement' necessary to bring to life a 'works contract', is clearly visible and identifiable. It is neither vague or uncertain nor unspecified. Its terms are well defined and written. To those terms, the assessee has no dispute. In fact it is a self admitted document. Its copy has also been annexed to the supplementary affidavit brought on record by the assessee. 31. Seen in that context and in light of the ratio in L&T case, ownership of land, its lack of transfer under the terms of the Allotment Letter, possibility of deviation in constructions being neither prohibited nor specially regulated in the State of U.P. (as was done in the states of Karnataka & Maharashtra under KOFA and MOFA), would remain issues, extraneous to the dispute at hand. Once the 'agreement' giving rise to the 'works contract' is identified and it does exist, the lack of regulatory law and the lack of transfer of land would make no difference. What the revenue seeks to tax is not the sale of land (which in any case it can never do), but the value of the goods incorporated in the execution of such 'works contract'. It is also not relevant whether the goods w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....works contract', as defined, it never remained open to the assessee to incorporate artificial clauses in the Allotment Letter as may allow it to claim that exception to the statutorily unexceptional rule - to tax 'works contract'. 35. In any case the law with respect to transfer of immovable property and the mandatory requirements prescribed thereunder for registration of a deed have no bearing on the levy of tax on works contract. That exists in a different sphere of law governing the manner in which a deed evidencing transfer of immovable property may be created and registered. Section 2(au) deliberately does not employ anything as may warrant any inference to be drawn that unless there pre-exists a valid and registered agreement to sell or a registered sale deed with respect to the under-construction building, no 'works contract' may arise. In fact that contract precedes a valid agreement to sell or a sale deed, as the case may be. 36. Then referring to the provision of KOFA and MOFA and the decisions of the Supreme Court in K. Raheja case (supra) and L&T case (supra), it has been stated, the provisions of those statutory laws do not govern the ratio laid down by the Supre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods by the person making the delivery, transfer or supply and a purchase of those goods by the person to whom such delivery, transfer or supply is made. (ad) "sale price" means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade, but inclusive of any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of goods at the time of or before the delivery of such goods, other than cost of outward freight or delivery or cost of installation in cases where such cost is separately charged; EXPLANATION -- (i) In a case in which any amount of any duty payable by a dealer is deferred for a period or in a case in which point of payment of any duty is shifted, amount, of such duty shall be deemed part of the sale price; (ii) The price of packing material in which any goods are packed shall be deemed part of sale price of goods sold; (iii) Sale price of goods in relation to transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract, shall be determined after deducting the agg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, the promoter shall execute the conveyance or deed of apartment in favour of each apartment taker within four months from the date. the apartment taker has entered into possession of his apartment. [The promoter shall file with the Competent Authority a copy of the conveyance executed by him under sub-section (1) of section 11 within a period of two months from the date of its execution.]" 39. Then, it cannot be denied, the facts of the present case may be similar to those found by a division bench of this Court in Assotech Realty Pvt. Ltd. (supra). There also, the assessee/petitioner before the Court was the owner of the (free-hold) land. It proposed to raise constructions over that land transferred to it by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. It advertised those constructions thereby proposing to sell apartments to be constructed. Against expression of interest shown by various individuals etc., against that representation made, it had issued Allotment Letters to them. Amongst others, under the terms and conditions of allotment, it was made subject to a sale deed being executed between the parties. Provision for common area/facilities etc. were also made with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the flat, the ownership of the fiat shall remain vested with the Company. 5. CHANGE IN SPECIFICATION That the Company may provide additional/better specifications other than those mentioned in the specifications sheet or G brochures or may increase/decrease the area ofthe flat of the Allottee(s) as deemed necessary or due to any supervening circumstances or due to any technical reason/s to facilitate the larger interest of the other Allottee(s), subject to adjustment of the price proportionality at the original rate. 6. PROJECT LOAN 6.1 The Allottee agrees that until a Sub-Lease Deed is executed and registered, the company shall continue to be the owner of the flat and also the construction thereon and this allotment shall not give to the Allottee(s) any right or title or interest therein even though all the payments have been received by the Company. It is further clarified that the Company is not constructing any flat as a contractor of the allottee(s) but on the other hand Company is constructing the complex as its own and the sale shall be deemed to have take place only, after the actual completion construction/finishing/handling over of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on or before the due date(s) fixed in the payment schedule, to avoid cancellation of allotment. 15.2 Where payments are delayed, the Company shall at its absolute discretion accept the delayed payments, on being shown sufficient cause by the Allottee(s) for such delay. The Allottee(s) shall be liable to pay interest 18% per annum on delayed payment, but no late payment shall be accepted if the default continues for a consecutive period of three months in case of Down Payment Plan and for three consecutive installments in case of other payment plans. 15.3 Delayed payments Allottee(s) will first be adjusted towards the interest due and thereafter the balance will be adjusted towards the principal amount. 17. ASSURANCE That the Company M/s J.M. Housing Ltd. hereby assures the allottee(s) that all the payments to Noida Authority will be solely paid and cleared by the Company before handing over the possession of the Flat or before the execution of Sub-lease Deed in favour of the Allottee(s)." 41. Similar clauses were found existing (by the division bench), in the case of Assotech Realty Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In that context, the division bench observ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sent case, we find that the petitioner is constructing the flats/ apartments not for and on behalf of the prospective allottees but otherwise. The payment schedule would not alter the transaction. The right, title and interest in the construction continue to remain with the petitioner. It cannot be said that the constructions were undertaken for and on behalf of the prospective allottees and, therefore, the constructions in question undertaken by the petitioner would not fall under Clause (m) of Section 2 read with Section 3-F of the Act and are outside the purview of the provisions of the Act. In other words, they cannot be subjected to tax under the Act and the action in imposing tax on such constructions treating them to be works contract, is wholly without jurisdiction. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 24th March, 2006 and 29th May, 2006, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Sector I, Noida, respondent No. 2, insofar as they relate to imposition of tax on construction of apartments/ houses/ flats and other construction in question, are wholly jurisdiction and they cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside." 43. It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any finding as may bind this Court in the present case. The learned single Judge while dealing with that revision merely observed that the Tribunal had recorded a finding that the assessee (in that case) had constructed the flats on its own behalf and that it had paid stamp duty on its own account. That being the reasoning of the Tribunal, the Court then merely observed - no question of law arose in such facts. 46. Considering the question of law that had been raised by the revenue in that revision, the reasoning offered by the Court to dismiss it, do not co-relate. It may never be said with any conviction that the Court had chosen to answer the question raised before it. It may be noted, this Court does not have appeal jurisdiction over the orders of the Tribunal. It only exercises revision jurisdiction. Thereby, it only seeks to answer questions of law that may be raised before it arising from any adjudication on facts made by the Tribunal - the last fact finding authority, both under U.P. Trade Tax Act and the Act. 47. For a question of law to be answered decisively, it must be both, seen to exist on the surface, and its answer must be contained within the discussion and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se to a 'works contract'. All that the Court adjudicated was, the matter required consideration by the statutory authorities as to the true intent of the parties and its consequences qua the existence or otherwise of a 'works contract'. 50. Before we may proceed to consider the decisions of the Supreme Court in K. Raheja case and L&T case, it would be relevant to take notice of the language of Section 2(au) of the Act. In defining the term 'works contract', the legislature has chosen to include therein 'any agreement' to carry out for cash etc. - 'building construction' of 'any movable or immovable property'. In the present facts, there is no dispute that 'cash' or 'valuable consideration' was passed by the allottees to the assessee - for building or construction of an 'immovable property'. Construction for the purposes of sale of residential flats would undoubtedly fulfill those conditions. What therefore is critical to the answer to the dispute brought before this Court is - whether the Allotment Letter admittedly issued by the assessee constitutes an 'agreement' for the purposes of Section 2(au) of the Act. 51. Intere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tial apartments described as 'J.M. Orchid'. This enterprise is stated to have been commenced by the assessee on its own account. Yet, at the same time, it is undisputed, during the Assessment Year in question, 403 of such under construction residential apartments under construction had already been booked by and had been allotted to third parties. It is the own case of the assessee that such bookings were evidenced by individual Allotment Letters issued, to each of those 403 allottees. 53. As to the terms of the Allotment Letters thus issued, again according to the assessee, those were as per the terms specified in Allotment Letters. A proforma Allotment Letter has been appended to the Supplementary Affidavit brought on record before this Court as well. Its content have already been noted above. Plain reading of the same clearly brings out the intent of the parties being - the assessee offered for sale individual apartments specified and fully described in the Allotment Letter. Details of tower number, flat number, floor number, super area etc. were clearly specified. With respect to payments, Clause 13 is specific. It required the payments to be made as per the plan as may have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers' within the meaning of the Sales Tax Act and were therefore liable to pay turnover tax under that Act. The facts of the case as were noted in paragraph no.2 of the decision were - the appellant K. Raheja was carrying on business of real estate development. It entered into development agreements with different owners of land. Upon sanction of the plans, residential and commercial constructions were raised on such plots of land. In that context, agreements of sale were entered into between those parties contemplating handing over to the purchasers, the duly constructed accommodations with undivided interest in land, also. 56. In such facts, it was noted in that decision, the owner of the land would transfer the ownership of land to the societies formed under KOFA. To that extent, there clearly existed a difference in the facts of that case and the present case to the extent. Here, the assessee has been found raising construction on land leased to it. Also, even on completion of the constructions, only a sub-lease is contemplated to be executed, by the assessee in favour of the allottee and not any society. However, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee may not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts to a works contract or not, the provisions of the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of Promotion of Construction, Sales, Management and Transfer) Act, 1974 I will have no relevance." 58. The above reasoning of the Supreme Court assumes primary importance for the purposes of adjudication in the present case, inasmuch as the Supreme Court negated the submissions arising from the ownership in the land and its transfer. It clearly reasoned - it was not required to go into the question, whether the assessee K. Raheja was the owner of the land. To the extent, K. Raheja may have entered into an agreement to carry out construction activity for others, it would be carrying out a 'works contract'. It would therefore be exposed to liability to tax thereon. Then, in unequivocal terms, the Supreme Court itself qualified - the provisions of KOFA were not relevant to the issue of construction or of 'works contract'. That observation having been made by the Supreme Court while it was directly dealing with the issue, the submission arising on the strength of KOFA and MOFA is misconceived. It is not required to be gone into by the Court, on the interpretation that is to be made to the eff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest in land would be transferred on a future date (upon execution of proper lease deed and sale deed), would not deflect the existence of 'works contract' that had arisen, as a direct consequence of the Allotment Letter. 61. The definition of the term 'works contract' is inclusive and not exclusive. Since it includes therein both, a written and implied contracts, such contracts may also be inferred as a consequence of the admitted conduct offered by the parties, wherein assessee offered payment terms to raise constructions and deliver the same for the exclusive benefit, use/and entitlement of the allottee. The original independent act of the assessee to start raising the constructions on its own land from its own fund after obtaining sanction from the development authority would be of little consequence, and in any case fade into inconsequence, as implied 'works contract' was not only permissible, but also arose subsequent to the date of commencement of the constructions. From thereon, the assessee would stand exposed to 'works contract' tax liability, during the subsistence of the Allotment Letter/s. Such 'works contract' could arise subsequent to initiation of constructio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... great length. The entire gamut of law of 'works contract' was revisited and elaborate discussion arose. In paragraph nos. 93, 94 and 95 of the report, it has been observed as below: "93. The question is: Whether taxing sale of goods in an agreement for sale of flat which is to be constructed by the developer/promoter is permissible under the Constitution? When the agreement between the promoter/developer and the flat purchaser is to construct a fat and eventually sell the flat with the fraction of land, it is obvious that such transaction involves the activity of construction inasmuch as it is only when the flat is constructed then it can be conveyed. We, therefore, think that there is no reason why such activity of construction is not covered by the term "works contract. After all, the term "works contract is nothing but a contract in which one of the parties in obliged to undertake or to execute works. Such activity of construction has all the characteristics or elements of works contract. The ultimate transaction between the parties may be sale of flat but it cannot be said that the characteristics of works contract are not involved in that transaction. When the transa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the type and standard of material used in the construction or because the allottee may have no right to monitor or to supervise the activity, would be of no consequence. 66. Thereafter, the larger bench of the Supreme Court laid down three tests to sustain the levy of tax on goods sold in execution of 'works contract'. Those are existence of 'works contract'; involvement of goods in execution of such 'works contract'; property in such goods must be transferred to third party. In the context of contract, that was in issue, those conditions were found wholly fulfilled at that stage. The Supreme Court also did not find it material to consider - if the existence of a third party-developer, over and above the owner, would be of material consideration. 67. In paragraph 101 of the report, the discussion made by the three judge Bench of the Supreme Court was summarized as below: 101. In light of the above discussion, we may summarise the legal position, as follows: (i) For sustaining the levy of tax on the goods deemed to have been sold in execution of a works contract, three conditions must be fulfilled: (one) there must be a works contract, (two) the goods should....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivisible works contract, by virtue of the legal fiction introduced by Article: 366(29-A)(b), there is a deemed sale of goods which are ir involved in the execution of the works contract. involved in the execution of a works contract where the contract is goods divisible into one for the sale of goods and the other for supply of labour and services. In other words, the single and indivisible contract, now by Forty-sixth Amendment has been brought on par with a contract containing two separate agreements and States have now power to levy sales tax on the value of the material in the execution of works contract. (ix) The expression "tax on the sale or purchase of goods" in Entry 54 in List II of Seventh Schedule when read with the definition clause 29- A of Article 366 includes a tax on the transfer of property in goods whether as goods or in the form other than goods involved in the execution of works contract. (x) Article 366(29-A) (b) serve: to bring transactions where essential ingredients of 'sale' defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 are absent within the ambit of sale or purchase for the purposes of levy of sales tax. In other words, transfer of mova....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted then there would be no works contract. But, so long as the agreement is entered into before the construction is complete it would be works contract." 69. The doubts raised by the two judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court while making reference in the L&T case were noted in paragraph 108 of the decision. It reads as below: "108. The correctness of the view taken in Raheja Development has been doubted in the referral order principally for the reasons: (a) the developer had undertaken the contract to develop the property of the owner. It is not alleged by the department that there is monetary consideration involved in the development agreement. If the development agreement is not a works contract, could the department rely upon the second contract which is the tripartite agreement and interpret it to be a works contract; (b) if the ratio in Rahaja Developments is to be accepted then there would be no difference between works contract and a contract sfer d for sale of chattel as a chattel and (c) from the definition of works contract, in the the contractor must have undertaken the work of construction for and on behalf of the flat purchaser for cash, deferred or any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... While dealing with the doubt expressed as to the correctness of the K. Raheja case, the larger bench of the Supreme Court clearly opined that the fact that the transfer of the flat and conveyance of land would arise on a future date, upon all installments being paid and that agreement between the developer and flat purchaser was one for sale of flats, had no merit. The reason to reject the challenge was given by the Supreme Court by observing that the doubt thus expressed clearly overlooked the typical nature of developer agreement. The developer does so for monetary consideration. The liability of payment was also found not decisive, though the factum of payment was found to be so. 72. Here, as well, it is an undeniable truth in the facts found by the Tribunal that the constructions were made by the assessee, though on its own land against Allotment Letter issued to and payments made by 403 allottees. It would be appropriate to note here itself that the revenue authorities have taxed the assessee only to the extent of payments were received by it against 403 flats. Only with respect to those allotments/payments received, 'works contract' was found existing and only with respe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se, is subsequent to the decision of the division bench of this Court in Assotech Realty Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it is the decision of the Supreme Court that creates binding effect in law. Even though the merit discussion made by the division bench in Assotech Realty Pvt. Ltd. (supra) may not have been specifically or directly overruled the same is no longer good law, in light of the reasoning and ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in L&T case. Once the 'agreement' arose upon Allotment Letter issued by the assessee, it satisfied the test of a 'works contract', in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It would be of no avail to rely on the decision of the division bench of this Court or the fact circumstance of dismissal of revision arising from the subsequent order of the Tribunal in Assotech Realty Pvt. Ltd. (supra). That final decision would remain a final adjudication, confined and limited to that case alone. 78. By way of clarification, it may be noted, the other decision of the division bench of this Court in Express Projects Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the learned single Judge in Supertech Ltd. NOIDA (supra) did not lay down any law. By those decisions, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2350;ये है। आडिट होता है। निर्माण सामग्री खरीद होते ही उसका प्रयोग हो जाता है अतः प्रयुक्त होते समय माल की कीमत टैक्स व भाड़ा सहित होती है। यह सभी जोड़कर स्वयं अपीलकर्ता द्वारा फ्लैट में प्रयुक्त दिखायी गयी है&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2367;या जाता है उसमे लाभांश का आधार फ्लैटस के निर्माण में प्रयुक्त सामग्री की दर कभी नही होती है ब्लकि लाभांश निर्माण के सुपरविजन, कन्ट्रोल, आदि के मेहनत के बदले में व जमीन की मँहगायी दिन पर दिन हो जाने के कारण ही &#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2354;्य वृद्धि 10.9% करते हुए बिक्री निर्धारित की गयी है और विभाग द्वारा निम्नलिखित मामलों में तथा अन्य बहुत सारे मामलों में माननीय इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय में रिवीजन तक भी दाखिल नहीं की गयी है। सर्वश्री अजनारा ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... व द्वितीय अपील संख्या 1/11, 5/10 व 300/16 सर्वश्री हरी बिल्डवेल प्रालि अराम कमिश्नर वाहिका लखनऊ द्वितीय अपील संख्या 768/13 यह कि उपरोक्त सभी आदेश विभाग पर बाध्यकारी है यहाँ पर यह भी उल्लेखनीय है कि 10 की मूल्य वृद्धि भी अपील è....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....354;्लेखनीय है कि स्वयं प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी द्वारा बहुत सारी अपीलों में खरीद मूल्य पर 10 % वृद्धि करके डीम्ड सेल निर्धारित की गयी है। सदस्य वाणिज्यकर अधिकरण द्वारा खरीद मूल्य में 10% की वृद्धि करते हुए, आदेश सर्&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in absence of proof of facts requiring applicability of Rule 9, estimation of deemed profit became necessary to be made - to determine the turnover of 'works contract'. In that, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for applying the 10% rule as a rough and ready method to estimate, considering compoundable cases, the turnover (to be subjected to tax). Insofar as the Tribunal seems to have applied the time tested measure to make estimate, I find no good ground to offer any interference with the finding of the Tribunal, in exercise of revision jurisdiction of the Court. 82. As to the alternate submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the assessee, that the value of goods has to be seen on the date when the goods may have been actually incorporated in a 'works contract', it is neither practical nor it otherwise merits acceptance. Construction activity that continues on a day-to-day basis and experiences price fluctuations everyday, may never be subjected to such an impractical exercise of computation as may lead to endless complications and disputes. If accepted, it would be to compel the authorities to monitor the day-to-day price of raw materials used in construction and would ....