THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN T.R.E.V.C.NO.182 OF 2009 10-09-2009 BETWEEN; M/s Patel Engineering Company Limited, Hyderabad ...Petitioner vs. The State of A.P. rep. by its STAT, A.P.Hyderabad ...Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN T.R.E.V.C.NO.182 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) This revision is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellat Tribunal (STAT), Hyderabad dated 01-06-2009 in T.A.No.516 of 2007. The petitioner a public limited Company incorporated under th Companies Act, 1956 is engaged in the business of execution of work contracts inter alia for the Government Departments and Governmen undertakings, Central and State. As part of its business activities, th petitioner executed civil works relating to the Srisailam Left Bank Powe House for APSEB/APGENCO under five contracts during 1990 to 2003. For the assessment year 1999-2000, the assessing authority passed final assessment order dated 18-03-2003, under the APGST Act,1957 ( fo short “the Act”). On 18-02-2005 the Deputy Commissioner (Revisiona authority) issued a show cause notice proposing revision of the order o assessment. The petitioner submitted its objections thereto on 19-02-2005 By an order dated 02-02-2007, the revisional authority revised th assessment and recomputed the turnover under Rule 6(3)(ii) of the APGS Rules,1957 ( for short “the Rules”). Thereagainst, the petitioner preferre T.A.No.516 of 2007 before the STAT. Before the STAT, it was concede on behalf of the petitioner that since it is a company undertaking “giganti projects spread over many years” it had not been possible for it to maintai records strictly in terms of Rule 45(1-c) of the Rules. The Tribunal in rejecting the petitioner’s appeal rightly held that fo computation of the taxable turnover under Rule 6(3)(i) to apply not onl should the execution of the works contract extend over a period of mor than one year but the amounts which are deductible as per clauses (a) t (i) of the Rule 6(2) should be ascertainable from the accounts of th dealer. If not so ascertainable from the accounts, then the taxable turnove of the dealer of the works contract shall be determined after deducting th amount calculated at the specified percentage, under Rule 6(3) (ii). Th Tribunal reiterated that the appellant admittedly did not maintain th accounts as envisaged under Rule 45(1-c) and therefore there was n question of having produced the same before the revisional authorit including as to deductions under Rule 6(2), which could be ascertaine from such books of account. The Tribunal specifically rejected the defens of the petitioner that being a company taking up large and comple contracts it is unable to maintain the books of account in accordance wit Rule 45(1-c). The Tribunal while observing that the petitioner being a larg company could have maintained the books of account in conformity wit the statutory requirement, held that it is in any event liable to be assesse as has rightly been observed by the revisional authority, under Rule 6(3)(i of the Rules. The Tribunal concurred with the revisional authority, that th assessing authority had clearly erred in assessing the petitioner unde Rule 6(3)(i) by relying upon the Audited Profit and Loss Accoun Statements alone and not the original accounts of the dealer, which ha not been maintained in accordance with Rule 45(1-c). In the circumstances no question of law falls for consideration in thi revision. The Revision is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admissio after hearing the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercia Taxes. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 10th SEPTEMBER 2009. TSNR