2025 (11) TMI 1796

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 18.1.2013 on the following questions of law framed in the memo of revision: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal was legally justified to treat the works contract to be Divisible one, while the terms and conditions of the contract clearly established that it was a composite indivisible work contract for the supply, installation and commissioning of C.P. System? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the present case the Member Tribunal was legally justified to reject the claim of applicant that amount of the goods, received and imported from outside the State of U.P. in pursuance of a pre-existing contract for use in execution of the said works contract to be deducted in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessment order dated 15.3.2017, in arbitrary and illegal manner treated the a divisible contract and treated the sale of the machinery individually. Against the said assessment order, first appeal was filed. The same was dismissed by the order dated 28.1.2010. Against the said order Second Appeal was preferred which is also dismissed by the impugned order dated 6.9.2012. 5. Learned Counsel further submits that various clauses of the work contract clearly establishes an indivisible works contract to which the appellant is entitled to claim benefit as per Section 3(F)(2)(b) of the Trade Tax Act but the same has illegally been denied. He submits that if the goods have been imported out side the State of U.P. for its execution of works c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nnot be established. It is also not in dispute that the machines were purchased from outside the state of U.P. and were consigned to the site within the State of U.P. and thereafter, the same were installed where reading of the contract as well as the facts noted hereinabove would clearly establishes that the complete composite contract was awarded to the revisionist. 9. This Court in the case of Santosh and Company (supra), has clearly held that the goods brought from out side the State of U.P. when consumed in U.P. in execution of the works contract, would be eligible to relief in terms of Section 3(F) (2) (b). Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Hansh Decorators (2018 VOL 98). Merely word supply of machinery i....