JUDGMENT :

Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.-Heard Shri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Suyash Agarwal and Shri Nitin Kesharwani, learned counsel for assessee and Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned standing counsel for the revenue.

2. Present revision has been filed by the assessee under Section 58 of the UTTAR PRADESH VALUE ADDED TAX ACT 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench II, NOIDA, dated 29.6.2019 passed in Second Appeal No. 52 of 2019 for the A.Y. 2010-11 (U.P.). By that order, the Tribunal has partly allowed the assessee's appeal and granted partial reduction in the value 1of goods incorporated in 'works contract' executed by the assessee and thus reduced the tax assessed on 'works contract'. However, on the main issue, whether the constructions raised by the assessee were by way of execution of 'works contract', the finding has been returned in the affirmative i.e. against the assessee.

3. Similar position prevails in other revisions connected to the present revision. Some of those revisions have been filed by other assessees. However, learned Senior Counsel for the assessee stated, the issue involved in all cases is one and the same. Also, in certain other cases, the Tribunal has taken the opposite stand i.e. in favour of the assessee. Thus, Sales/Trade Tax Revision Nos. 671 of 2013, 207 of 2013, 208 of 2013, 209 of 2013, 210 of 2013 have been filed by the revenue, raising the same issue (from the other perspective). Learned Standing Counsel has pointed out, those revisions (filed by the State), had arisen prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Larsen and Toubro Limited and another v. State of Karnataka and another , 2013 NTN (53) 65 (hereinafter referred to as the 'L&T case').

4. In such circumstance, all the revisions being decided today came to be tagged. Accordingly, they were heard on various dates interspersed with adjournments that became necessary owing to roster changes experienced by way of regular routine of the Court in its day-to-day functioning. The order itself took time to correct, finalize and upload on 31.5.2023, with prior oral intimation to learned counsel for the parties.

5. For the sake of convenience and as has been suggested by learned counsel for the parties, the submissions were first advanced in the present revision being Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 333 of 2019 ( J.M.Housing Ltd. v. The Commissioner Commercial Tax ) for the A.Y. 2010-11 (U.P.). Accordingly, it is being decided first.

6. This revision was admitted on the following questions of law:

''(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in not distinguishing the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Raheja and Larsen & Toubro to the facts of the present case inasmuch as there was neither tripartite agreement nor any prior sale-deed nor had the assessee otherwise executed any works contract on behalf of the eventual purchasers with respect to construction raised by the assessee on its own land?

(ii) Whether in the alternative the Tribunal was right in sustaining the addition of 10% in purchase of value of goods for calculating the deemed sale, ignoring the value of goods at the time of incorporation of goods consumed in the construction even though the property in goods passes later on?''

7. No other question has been pressed or stated to be arising in this batch of cases. Undisputedly, the assessee claims to be the lessee of land ad measuring 20900 sq.mtrs, at district Gautam Budh Nagar. It further claims to have decided to develop on that land, a residential housing scheme - 'J.M. Orchid', comprising of two and three bedroom flats, numbering about 684, in all. Without entering into any further agreement with any developer or any third party, the assessee then claims to have started construction of the above described 684 flats, from its own funds. The revenue authorities fo