Court No. - 1
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 665 of 2008 Revisionist :- M/S Sanjay Builders Opposite Party :- Commissioenr Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- N.C. Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. The present revision has been filed by the applicant-assessee against the order of Trade Tax Tribunal, Allahabad dated 31.1.2008 passed in Second Appeal No. 526 of 2007 for the A.Y. 1995-96. By that order, the Tribunal has upheld the first appeal order and confirmed the demand of tax on sale of earth, made by the assessee.
2. Heard Sri N.C. Gupta, learned counsel for applicant-assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for revenue.
3. The present revision has been pressed on the following question of law:
"Whether the learned Trade Tax Tribunal as well as the authorities below were justified in treating the sale of soil as mineral despite the fact that the revisionist has done only earth work, which is covered under the job work and there is no liability of any tax?"
4. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the composite contract for levelling work had been awarded to the assessee, who had received payment Rs. 12,45,151/-. It is claimed that since the contract was a labour contract for levelling work, no liability of tax could have been fixed on the assessee for supply of earth.
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has referred to the assessment order wherein the assessee had stated that under the contract, it had supplied earth for value. It further claimed that the same was exempt under Section 4 of the U.P. Trade Tax, 1948, which claim could not be substantiated and, therefore, tax liability was fixed treating the sale of earth to be taxable as a mineral. He has also referred to the finding of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has considered this issue at length and found that since the assessee had dug up the earth and thereafter supplied it, for which money had also been paid, the same amounted to sale of goods which was taxable, treating the earth itself to be a mineral.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, it may not be entirely right on part of the assessee to now contend that the contract awarded to it was an individual labour contract. In view of the admission recorded in the assessment orders itself, it has to be accepted that the assessee treated its contract for supply of earth for value. Insofar as that value is clearly disclosed and is accepted, there is no doubt that the earth had been sold by the assessee (on deemed basis) while performing the works contract awarded to it. Again, undisputedly, the earth thus sold would remain a mineral for the purpose of tax entry.
7. In view of the above, there is no error in the order and reasoning of the Tribunal. The question of law (as framed above) is answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.
8. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Prakhar