In support of the writ petition, it was companytended that Section 35 of the Act does number make any provision for deduction and ascertainment of value and nature of goods supplied during execution of work contracts.
In the reply statement, it was stated that the companytractors who are engaged in the companystruction of buildings, roads, bridges, dams etc generally companye from other States.
Background facts highlighted by the respondent are as follows The writ petitioner is a proprietary companycern of one Shri Krishana Mudliar and it has been executing works companytracts for various Departments of the Chhattisgarh State Government and others and was holding sales tax registration No.061/RDN/14,2739/02.
The writ petition is opposed by the present appellants by filing reply statement of objections.
5679 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
991 of 2007 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The respondent hereinafter is described as the assessee.
During the assessment year 2001 2002, the writ petitioner had executed works companytracts awarded by Executive Engineer, P.W.D. BR , Division Khairagarh, for which it received payment of Rs.1,27,115/ on which sales tax of Rs.2,545/ , being 2 of sum of Rs.1,27,115/ was deducted at source towards the sales tax payable as provided under Section 35 of the Adhiniyam.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Chhatisgarh High Court.
Respondent filed a writ petition before the Chhatisgarh High Court questioning companystitutional validity of Section 35 of Chhattisgarh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam .
