B.K. Sharma, J.

1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by annexure I assessment order dated August 27, 2001 affirmed on revision and appeal vide annexures III and v. orders dated July 4, 2002 and December 10, 2003, respectively.

2. As stated in the writ petition, the Petitioner had executed 3 (three) sub-contracts worth Rs.98,12,479 with the principal contractors within Assam and the same were not reflected in the return since according to the Petitioners, there was no liability for payment of tax in respect thereof. However, the Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri, by his assessment order dated August 27, 2001 held otherwise on the basis of Rule 14(1)(c) of the Assam General Sales Tax Rules, 1993. Dealing with the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner that the aforesaid amount of Rs.98,12,479 was not shown by the Petitioner in its annual return as the same was in respect of the sub-contracts, such contention on behalf of the Petitioner was repelled by the assessment order dated August 27, 2001 holding that as per the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1993, the Petitioner would be liable to pay tax on such sub-contract.

3. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the revisional authority and the said authority by the impugned annexure III assessment order dated July 4, 2002 having affirmed the assessment order upon a reference to Rule 14(1)(c) of the Rules, the Petitioner approached the appellate authority. The appellate authority also by its impugned annexure v. order dated December 10, 2003 having affirmed the impugned orders, the Petitioner filed the instant writ petition. Be it stated here that the appellate authority by its impugned order dated December 10, 2003 disposed of two appeals namely, Case No. 8 STA/2002 and Case No. 9 STA/2002. In the present proceeding, we are concerned with Case No. 9 STA/2002.

4. Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the assessing authority wrongly passed the impugned order dated August 27, 2001 on a misconception of the matter and so also, the revisional and appellate authority. According to him, the said authorities having not considered the relevant aspects of the matter, the said orders are not sustainable in law. Mr. Joshi submits that the particular turnover being in respect of sub-contracts, the Petitioner was not liable to pay any tax.

5. He has placed reliance on two decisions of the apex court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. reported in [2008] 17 VST 1: [2008] 9 SCC 191 and DLF Industries Limited v. State of Haryana [2000] 120 STC 569 (P&H).

6. On the other hand, Mr. R. Dubey, learned standing counsel, finance, upon a reference to the provisions of Section 2(9) of the Act and Rule 14(1)(c) of the Rules, submits that as per the said provisions, the Petitioner is liable to pay tax and the assessing authority rightly passed the impugned order dated August 27, 2001 affirmed by both the revisional and the appellate authority.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials on record. Section 2(9) of the Act defines "contractors", which means any person executing a works contract and includes a sub-contractor. Rule 14(1)(c) of the Rules reads as follows:

14. (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 2(34)(a) and Section 8(3) in determining the taxable turnover of a works contract the amounts specified in the following clauses shall be deducted from the gross turnover--

(a) to (b) . . .

(c) where the contractor carries out work either in part or full by engaging registered sub-contracts for the execution of the works-contract, the turnover relating to the sub-contractors shall be deduced subject to production of proof of payment of tax by such sub-contractor ;

8. All the three authorities, upon a reference to the aforesaid provisions of Rule 14(1)(c) have held that the Petitioner is liable to pay tax on the turnover in respect of sub-contract. In Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2008] 17 VST 1 (SC): [20