2024 (3) TMI 973
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Years 2010-11 (UP & Central), 2011-12 (UP & Central) and 2012-13 (UP), wherein the following question of law has been framed: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the cement imported from outside the State of U.P., the turnover is liable to be reduced as per Rule 9 of the Value Added Tax Rules?" 3. With regard to the question of law, learned counsel on behalf of revisionist submitted that factum of import of goods and specific execution of work contract has not been established by the assessee and, therefore, the benefit under Rule 9 Sub Rule (1)(e) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008, (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules') would not be applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the goods (giving rise to the claim of exemption) must precede their transfer under the works contract. Second, transfer of the property in those goods must result or spring from the transaction of inter-state sale of those goods. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are to the effect, first a works contract was executed. Thereafter, the assessee caused the movement of goods from outside the state of U.P. for purpose of execution of the works contract. Third, as a fact, the assessee applied those goods to the works contract executed by it. Consequently, it has to be inferred that the property in those goods stood transferred to the contractee parties. . . . 13. Once the Tribunal had found that the movement of goods from outsid....