Allahabad High Court
M/S Skyline Engg. Contracts India Pvt. ... vs Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucnow on 22 July, 2019
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 2385 of 2007 Revisionist :- M/S Skyline Engg. Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party :- Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucnow Counsel for Revisionist :- N.C. Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri N.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
2. The present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal dated 07.08.2007 passed in Second Appeal No.75 of 2004 for A.Y. 2000-01 (UP). By that order, the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the first appellate authority whereby the benefits of Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 claimed by the assessee with respect to purchase of certain materials from outside the State of U.P. has been denied.
3. The assessee had claimed that it had purchased goods solely for the purpose of two works contract that had been awarded, however, the authorities have concurrently returned the finding that the linkage between movement of the goods from outside the State and civil works executed by the assessee has not been established.
4. Learned counsel for the assessee has relied on an earlier decision of this Court in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.346 of 2018 (M/S Comfort Systems Vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax, U.P.) and other connected matters decided on 01.02.2019.
5. Clear point of distinction exists between the facts and findings recorded in the case of M/S Comfort Systems Vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax, U.P. inasmuch as in that case, it was own finding of the Tribunal that there pre-existed works contract between the assessee and contractee and that the assessee had purchased the goods from outside the State of U.P. only to execute such pre-existing contract. In the present case, the assessee has not been able to establish pre-existence of such contracts and the movement of the goods was dictated or occasioned by such contract.
6. In view of the above, though on principle, there can be no dispute, however, in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, that principle cannot be applied. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal are found to be findings of fact based on appraisal of evidence.
7. In view of the above, the present revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.7.2019 Abhilash