My photo




Sunday, April 12, 2015

Section 69 of the Sales Tax Act, 1969 = the appellant's works contract for fabrication and installation of water chilling plant at the factory of Anupam Colours and Chemicals at Vapi would fall under Entry 5 of the Schedule to the Notification dated 18.10.1993 issued under Section 55A of the Act and would be taxable at the rate of 5% as prescribed thereby. The impugned decision dated 4.9.2006 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Sales Tax Reference No.1/2004 and Special Civil Appeal No.12508/2002 and other determinations as are contrary to the views expressed herein are hereby set aside.


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2957 of 2007

Voltas Ltd.                                         ....Appellant

State of Gujarat                                 .....Respondent

                             J U D G M E N T


The oft encountered debate on the extent  of  tax  liability  based  on  the
classification of the determinants of a levy in law seeks judicial  scrutiny
in the attendant factual conspectus.  The appellant being aggrieved  by  the
determination made by the High Court of Gujarat on the  issue  common  to  a
reference  under  Section  69  of  the  Sales  Tax  Act,  1969  (for   short
hereinafter  referred  as  to  as  the  "Act")  being  Sales  Tax  Reference
No.1/2004 and its appeal, i.e. Special  Civil  Application  No.  12508/2002,
against it, seeks redress against the judgment and order dated 4.09.2006  to
that effect.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The indispensable skeletal facts introduce the appellant, M/s.  Voltas  Ltd.
as a company incorporated under the  Companies  Act,  1956  engaged  amongst
others in the business of execution of jobs design, supply and  installation
of air-conditioning plants construed to be indivisible works contracts.   It
is a registered dealer under the Act. By a  communication  dated  22.10.1993
of M/s. Anupam Colours  and  Chemicals  Industries,  Bombay,  an  order  was
placed with it for water chilling plant at its factory at Vapi.   The  basic
design  parameters were enumerated in the work order as hereunder:

"1.Tonnage of Refrigeration             ..        11 TR

2. Final temperature or chilled              ..          5 to 6C
water to be made available
for our process.

3.Quantity    of    chilled    water                     ..           12,000
liters( 5 to 6 C) required for our                     liters"
process in about 10 hours.

Other specifications pertaining to the water chilling plant were advised  to
be in conformity with the assessee's offer, as  referred  to  therein.   The
work order insisted on the requirement of chilled water to be used  directly
for  its  process  of  manufacturing  pigments  with  the   assertion   that
sufficient precautions be taken to ensure that  chilled  water  at  5  to  6
degree centigrade is available for such process. The  letter  emphasized  as
well that the assessee would provide the customer with the lay-out  details,
foundation  drawing  and  other  necessary  information  required  for   the
erection of the plant.   The  essential  segments  of  the  works  contracts
involved, as would be eventually  relevant  for  the  adjudicative  exercise
underway, were thus specified with distinct details in the work order.

4.    The Act which is a  legislation  to  consolidate  and  amend  the  law
relating to the levy of tax on the sale or purchase of goods  in  the  State
of Gujarat has set out in Part-A of Schedule II-A thereof, the rates of  the
impost on the  sale  of  goods  involved  in  the  execution  of  the  works
contracts, the relevant excerpt whereof is quoted as under:

|Sr.No.   |Description of works contract |Entry No. in |Regular rate of   |
|         |                              |Schedule-IIA |tax               |
|         |                              |of the Act   |                  |
|  1.     |Installation of               |       67    |     18%          |
|         |air-conditioners and          |             |                  |
|         |A.C.coolers and for repairs   |             |                  |
|         |thereof.                      |             |                  |
|  2.     |Furniture and fixtures        |       104   |      8%          |
|         |partitions including contracts|             |                  |
|         |for interior decoration and   |             |                  |
|         |repairs thereof               |             |                  |
|   3.    |Fabrication and installation  |        120  |       8%         |
|         |of lifts or elevators or      |             |                  |
|         |escalators and for repairs    |             |                  |
|         |thereof                       |             |                  |
| 4.      |Fabrication and installation  |        39   |       8%         |
|         |of plant and machinery and    |             |                  |
|         |repairs thereof               |             |                  |
|  5.     |Construction of bodies on     |     128(5)  |       4%         |
|         |chassis of Motor Vehicles     |             |                  |
|         |including three wheelers and  |             |                  |
|         |for repairs thereof           |             |                  |
|  6.     |Ship building including       |      186    |       4%         |
|         |construction of barges,       |             |                  |
|         |Ferries Tugs Trawlers or      |             |                  |
|         |Dredgers and for repairs      |             |                  |
|         |thereof                       |             |                  |

5. Section 55-A of the Act dwells  on  the  scheme  of  composition  of  tax
whereunder a dealer as referred to therein  and  in  the  circumstances  and
subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, is left with the option  to
pay in lieu of the amount of tax leviable from him under Section 7 or  8  in
respect of any period, a lump sum by way of composition at  the  rate/rates,
as may be fixed by the State Government  by  notification  in  the  Official
Gazette, having regard to the incidence of tax on the nature  of  the  goods
involved in the execution of total value of  the  works  contract.   Apt  it
would be to quote Section 55A as well for ready reference:


The Commissioner may, in such circumstances and subject to  such  conditions
as may be prescribed, permit every dealer referred to in sub-clause  (f)  of
clause (10) of section 2 to pay at his option in lieu of the amount  of  tax
(including additional tax) leviable from  him  under  section  7,(or  8)  in
respect of any period, a lump sum by way  of  composition  at  the  rate  or
rates as may be fixed  by  the  State  Government  by  Notification  in  the
Official Gazette having regard to the incidence of tax on the nature of  the
goods involved in the execution of total value of the works contract.

The provisions of sections [13,51 and 55] shall not apply to  a  dealer  who
opts for composition of tax under sub-section (1).]"

Pursuant to this provision, and as  empowered  thereby,  the  Government  of
Gujarat vide  the  notification  dated  18.10.1993  (for  short  hereinafter
referred to as the Notification) did fix the rate of composition payable  by
such dealer (s) in lieu of the amount of tax otherwise  leviable  under  the
Act and as contemplated in the said statutory provision.  As  the  stand-off
centers around  the  rate of composition so fixed, essential it would be  to
set out the table of relevant entries to be immediately adverted to:

|Sr.No.   |Description of works contract                |Rate of           |
|         |                                             |Composition       |
|1.       |Works contract for civil works like          |       2%         |
|         |construction of buildings, bridges or roads, |                  |
|         |and for repairs thereof                      |                  |
|2.       |Installation of air-conditioners and         |       15%        |
|         |A.C.Coolers                                  |                  |
|3.       |Furniture and fixtures, Partitions including |        5%        |
|         |contracts for interior decoration            |                  |
|4.       |Fabrication and installation of lifts or     |       10%        |
|         |elevators or escalators                      |                  |
|5.       |Fabrication and installation of plant and    |         5%       |
|         |machinery                                    |                  |
|6.       |Construction of bodies on chassis of motor   |         3%       |
|         |vehicles including three wheelers            |                  |
|7.       |Ship building, including construction of     |2%                |
|         |barges, ferries tugs, trawlers or dredgers   |                  |
|8.       |Works contracts other than those mentioned   |         12%      |
|         |above                                        |                  |

6. The recorded  facts  demonstrate  that  the  appellant  being  under  the
impression qua the works contract ordered vide letter  dated  22.10.1983  of
M/s. Anupam  Colour  and  Chemicals  that  it  would  attract  the  rate  of
composition prescribed against Entry No.5 hereinabove i.e.  fabrication  and
installation of plant and machinery and not  15%  against  Entry  No.2  i.e.
installation of air-conditioners and AC coolers or 12%  against  Entry  No.8
i.e. works contracts other  than  those  mentioned,   filed  an  application
before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Legal), Gujarat  under  Section
62 of the Act and insisted that the works contract involved came within  the
purview of Entry No.5 attracting the composition rate of  tax  at  5%  only.
The said revenue authority by its order dated  16.10.1996  however  rejected
the plea of the appellant and instead  held  that  the  works  contract  was
covered by Entry No.2 as the assessee had to air-condition the plant  to  be
erected by it.  The margin of difference in the composition  rates  compared
to the rates of tax for the identical works contract as  catalogued  in  the
Schedule to the Act did also weigh with the revenue  authority  in  arriving
at this conclusion.

7.    The appellant-assessee being  dissatisfied  did  appeal  against  this
finding  before  the  Gujarat  Sales  Tax  Tribunal,  Ahmedabad  (for  short
hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") which was  registered  as  Appeal
No. 16/1996.  In course of the regular assessment for  the  Assessment  Year
1993-94, the concerned Sales Tax Officer, pursuant to the decision  rendered
by the  Deputy  Commissioner  of  Sales  Tax  on  16.10.1996,  assessed  the
appellant by applying the composite rate  of  15%  for  the  works  contract

8.    The appellant thus preferred an appeal against this  assessment  order
before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ahmedabad and having  failed
before this forum did take the issue before the Tribunal  in  Second  Appeal
No.97/2001.  These two appeals were also dismissed by the Tribunal vide  its
judgment and order dated 2.12.2002  whereafter  the  appellant  invoked  the
writ  jurisdiction  of  Gujarat  High  Court  registered  as  Special  Civil
Application No. 12508/2002 which to reiterate, have been,  by  the  impugned
decision, disposed of along with Sales Tax Reference No.1/2004 laid  by  the
Tribunal before it under Section 69  of  the  Act  referring  the  following
question of law:

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of  the  case,  the  Tribunal
was right in  law  in  holding  that  the  appellant's  works  contract  for
fabrication and installation of air-conditioning plants falls under Entry  2
and, therefore, taxable at the rate of 15%  and  not  under  Entry  5  under
which it is taxable at the rate of 5% of the Schedule  to  the  notification
dated 18.10.93 issued under Section 55A of the Gujarat Sales Act, 1969?"

9. The High Court has answered the  question  referred  in  the  affirmative
thus sustaining the determination made by the revenue  authorities/fora  and
the learned Tribunal declaring  that  the  appellant's  works  contract  for
fabrication and for installation of air-conditioning plant  did  fall  under
Entry 2 of the Notification and was taxable at the composition rate of 15%.

10. As the decision of the High Court assailed  herein  would  disclose,  in
its view, the air-conditioning systems are  classified  according  to  their
construction and operating characteristics and that it  would  be  incorrect
to differentiate between a central air-conditioning system and a  room  air-
conditioner on the basis that the  installation  of  air-conditioning  plant
requires preparation of plant whereas no such exercise is to  be  undertaken
in case of installation of window air-conditioner etc.  This is more  so  as
the basic components  applied  in  the  manufacture  of  a  air-conditioning
plant, room air-conditioner or  split  air-conditioner  are  almost  similar
with difference in size and are not drastically different.  The  appellant's
plea  that  in  central  air-conditioning  system,  fabrication  has  to  be
undertaken requiring preparation of plant etc. and  that  thus  the  central
air-conditioning system has to be  treated  differently  from  a  room  air-
conditioner  or  window  air-conditioner  etc.  was  not  accepted  because,
according to the High Court, even in a room air-conditioner or  window  air-
conditioner or split air-conditioner or AC cooler, elevation and lay out  of
the area requiring conditioning,  has to be taken  into  consideration.  The
appellant's contention that Entry 5 dealt with all kinds of fabrication  and
installation of all kinds of plant and  machinery  and  that  there  was  no
reason to exclude the installation of air-conditioning plant  therefrom  was
negatived.  The High Court was of  the  view  that  the  composition  scheme
ought to be regarded  as  an  exemption  reprieve  and  thus  needed  to  be
construed strictly.  Reliance was placed on the decision of this   Court  in
Sanden Vikas (India) Ltd. V. Collector of Central Excise, New  Delhi  (2003)
4 SCC 699 which held with reference to a particular entry  in  an  exemption
notification under the  Central  Excise  Tariff  Act,  1985  that  the  air-
conditioner kit of a car did fall within the  meaning  of  air-conditioners.
It rejected the proposition that in common  parlance  air-conditioner,  room
air-conditioner,  window  air-conditioner,  A.C.  cooler,   air-conditioning
plant etc. were differently known and thus installation of  air-conditioning
plant would fall within Entry No.5.

11.   Mr.  Datar,  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the   appellant   has
assertively urged that having regard  to  the  inalienable  and    essential
constituents of the works contract as per the  work  order,  fabrication  as
well as the  installation  of  the  water  chilling  plant  were  distinctly
different items  of  works  and  thus  the  appellant  was  taxable  at  the
composition rate of 5% against Entry No.5 of  the  Notification.   Referring
to the work  order  dated  22.10.1993  in  particular,  the  learned  senior
counsel has maintained that the water chilling plant of the customer was  to
be configured in conformity with the design parameters referred  to  therein
and not on readymade specifications on the election  or  discretion  of  the
appellant-assessee.   According  to  Mr.   Datar   the   design   parameters
prescribed by the customer, to cater to its requirement  amongst  others  of
the temperature of the chilled water and the volume thereof to be  used  for
its process of  manufacturing  pigment  did  assuredly  involve  design  and
fabrication of the essential composition of the system  which  by  no  means
could be equated with  the  installation  thereof  simplicitor  as  the  end
device.  That the customer was persistently particular on the  adherence  to
its prescribed design  parameters  as  is  apparent  from  the  work  order,
demonstrates that the works contract, in any view of the matter,  cannot  be
drawn within the contours of Entry 2 of the Notification, he urged.

12.   As against this,  Ms.  Madhvi  Diwan,  the  learned  counsel  for  the
Revenue has argued that as the supply of the water  chilling  plant  as  per
the works contract involved for all practicable purposes does  not  envisage
any process of fabrication, the appellant is  liable  to  be  taxed  at  the
composition rate of 15%.  According  to  her,  the  basic   and   functional
components of the water chilling plant being identical to that  of  an  air-
conditioning plant, the appellant's plea  of  application  of  5%  composite
rate prescribed against Entry No.5 of the Notification is  wholly  misplaced
and thus no interference with the impugned  judgment  and  order  is  called
for.  Reliance was placed on the decision of  this  Court  in  Sanden  Vikas
(India) supra.

13. The rival assertions have received our due consideration. The  competing
entries requiring scrutiny to ascertain the correct composition rate of  tax
payable vis--vis the works contract involved are  engrafted  admittedly  in
the Notification issued by the Government of Gujarat in exercise  of  powers
conferred by Section 55A of the Act.   Logically  thus,  the  interpretation
necessitated by the rival orientations ought to be  in  furtherance  of  the
underlying objective of the said provision.  A plain perusal  thereof  would
attest that thereby, in the circumstances to be prescribed, a dealer can  be
left at his option to pay in lieu of the amount of tax payable, a  lump  sum
by way of composition, at the rate or rates as may be  fixed  by  the  State
Government having regard to the incidence of tax on the nature of the  goods
involved  in  the  execution  of  total  value  of   the   works   contract.
Unmistakably, therefore, the State Government while fixing  the  composition
rate of tax has to be mindful of the nature of the works  contract  executed
and by no means can be oblivious thereof.  Further, a  composition  rate  of
tax is in lieu of the amount of levy otherwise payable by the  dealer  under
the Act.  The scheme of composition as envisaged by  Section  55A  therefore
in our  comprehension  does  not  admit  of  any  synonymity  with  that  of
exemption as contemplated in law.  This pre-supposition of  the  High  Court
as one of the contributing factors in concluding that the works contract  in
question did fall within the framework of Entry No.2 of the Notification  is
apparently erroneous.

14.  As adverted to hereinabove, the work order in clear  terms  did  enjoin
that the design parameters pertaining to  tonnage  of  refrigeration,  final
temperature  of  the  water  to  be  made  available  for  the  process   of
manufacturing pigments and the  quantity  of  the  chilled  water  essential
therefor  were  indispensable  and   were   in   addition   to   the   other
specifications as offered by the appellant.  The rigour  of  the  insistence
for the adherence to the design parameters is patent also from  the  request
of the customer requiring the appellant to  provide  it  with  the  lay  out
detail, foundation drawing and other  necessary  information  essential  for
the erection of the water chilling  plant.   The  exercise  as  a  whole  as
contemplated by the work order thus was neither intended nor can be  reduced
to mere installation of the finally  emerging  apparatus.   The  work  order
noticeably did not refer to any readymade or  instantly  available  devices,
meeting the requirements of the customer so much so to be only installed  at
its factory.  Instead, the work order had  been  apparently  tailor-made  to
the requirements from which no departure was intended  or  comprehended.  It
is in this perspective that the word "fabrication" appearing in  Entry  No.5
of     the     Notification     assumes     a     decisive     significance.

15.   The legislative intendment entrenched in Section 55A  of  the  Act  to
maintain a direct correlation between the composition rates of  tax  as  the
Notification would reveal and the description  of  the  corresponding  works
contract is patent. Understandably, the  word  "fabrication"  had  not  been
applied in the works contract for installation of air-conditioners and  A.C.
coolers contained in Entry No.2 of the Notification. The author of the  said
Notification, however, did consciously include the expression  "fabrication"
while describing the works contract enumerated in Entry 5  thereof.   Having
regard to the inseparable  interdependence  between  the  description  of  a
works contract and the corresponding composition rate of tax,  none  of  the
inherent components of the works to be executed can  either  be  ignored  or
disregarded for identifying the correct composition rate of the  levy  under
the Act. Any other approach could tantamount to doing violence not  only  to
the legislative purpose conveyed by Section 55A but  also  the  language  of
its yield i.e. the  Notification  seeking  to  promote  the  statutory  end.
Viewed in that context, mere omission of the expressions  "air-conditioners"
and  "A.C.  coolers"  in  Entry  No.5  would  not  be  of   any   definitive
consequence.   The  words  plant  and  machinery  applied  in  Entry  5  are
otherwise compendious enough to include air-conditioners and  A.C.  coolers,
if the works contract involved require fabrication as well  as  installation

16.   The word "fabrication" as defined in the Aiyan's Advanced Law  Lexicon
(Vol.II), 3rd Edition 2005 is "to manufacture".

17.   The Oxford Dictionary  defines  the  word  "fabrication"  to  mean  to
construct or manufacture an industrial product.

18.  The  word  "manufacture"  as  per  the  Aiyan's  Advanced  Law  Lexicon
(Vol.II) in its plainest form and shorn of other details is the  process  of
transforming or fashioning of raw materials into a change of form  for  use.
The process of fabrication therefore conceptually would involve  a  lay  out
for the ultimate device to  be  installed,  preceded  by  a  design  of  the
parameters  prescribed,  configuration  of  the  resultant  components,  and
integration  thereof  to  structure  the  ultimate  mechanism  or   product.
Installation thereof would be a subsequent  step  to  finally  position  the
plant to complete the works contract. As fabrication in terms  of  the  work
order in the instant case is a distinctly independent yet  integral  segment
of the works contract contributing to the final physical form of  the  water
chilling plant with the characteristics intended, it cannot be construed  to
be, synonymous to the installation thereof.

19.   The High Court,  as the impugned judgment would exhibit, had  confined
itself  wholly  to  the  components  of  various  air-conditioning   devices
available and the range of the use thereof and in our  estimate  had  missed
the significant aspect of "fabrication" integrally  involved  in  the  works
contract to supply the water  chilling  plant  with  the  design  parameters
stipulated by the customer.  The High Court did  adopt  a  general  approach
vis-a-vis the air-conditioning devices commercially available  in  different
forms dehors the singular factual aspects of  the  work  order  constituting
the works contract.  The High Court, thus, in our view, by  overlooking  the
component of fabrication in the works contract  opined  that  the  same  was
within the purview of Entry No.2 and not Entry  No.5.   The  description  of
the works  contract,  to  reiterate,  being  of  determinative  bearing  for
ascertaining the composition rate of tax, we are of the unhesitant  opinion,
in the face of the design parameters insisted upon in  the  work  order  and
consequential process of fabrication involved to  cater  thereto,  that  the
works contract involved squarely falls within the ambit  of  Entry  No.5  of
the Notification.  The margin of difference in rates of  tax  as  prescribed
by the Act compared to those mentioned in the Notification ipso  facto  does
not detract from this conclusion. This consideration per se cannot  override
the decisive characteristics of the works contract  otherwise  unequivocally
spelt out by the work order.

20.  The primary canon of interpretation of a  taxing  statute  hallowed  by
time is underlined by the classic statement of  ROWLATT,J.  in  Cape  Brandy
Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commnrs. (1921) 1 KB 64  at  p.71  as  extracted

"In a Taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly  said.  There  is
no room for any intendment. There is no equity about  a  tax.  There  is  no
presumption as to a tax. Nothing  is  to  be  read  in,  nothing  is  to  be
implied. One can only look fairly at the language used."

 It is trite as well that in a case of reasonable  doubt,  the  construction
most beneficial to the subject is to be adopted.  The  underlying  principle
is that the meaning and intention of a statute must be  collected  from  the
plain and unambiguous expression used therein rather than  from  any  notion
that may be entertained by a Court which  may  appear  to  be  it  just  and
expedient. Even prior in point of time, TINDAL, CJ in  Sussex  Peerage  case
(1844) 11 C1 & Fin 85 : 8 ER 1034(HL) had propounded thus:

            "If the words of the  statute  are  in  themselves  precise  and
unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound  those  words  in
their natural and ordinary sense. The words  themselves  do  alone  in  such
cases best declare the intent of the law-giver."

These views have with time  resonated  in  various  judicial  pronouncements
with unambiguous approval of this Court as well  amongst  others  in  Income
Tax Officer, Tuticorin vs. T.S.Devinatha Nadar & Ors. (1968)68 ITR  252  and
very recently in Commissioner of  Income  Tax-III  vs.  Calcutta  Knitwears,
Ludhiana (2014) 6 SCC 444 and Commissioner of Income  Tax  (Central)-I,  New
Delhi vs. Vatika  Township  Pvt.  Ltd.  2015  (1)  SCC  1.   A  plethora  of
decisions in this regard, available though, we do not  wish  to  burden  the
instant narration therewith.

21.   Qua  the  issue  of  classification  of   goods   to   determine   the
chargeability thereof and the rates of levy applicable, it is no longer res-
integra that the burden of proof is on the taxing authority  to  demonstrate
that a particular class of goods or item  in  question  is  taxable  in  the
manner claimed by them and that mere assertion  in  that  regard  is  of  no
avail as has been enunciated by this Court in  U.O.I.  &  Ors.  vs.  Garware
Nylones Ltd.etc. (1996) 10 SCC 413  and relied upon  with  approval  in  HPL
Chemicals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh (2006)  5  SCC

22. Equally, fundamental is the principle of statutory  interpretation  that
no construction to a legislation ought to be provided  so  as  to  render  a
part of it otiose  or  redundant  as  held  inter  alia  by  this  Court  in
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & Ors.  vs.  Satchikitsa  Prasarak
Mandal & Ors. (2010)3 SCC 786.

23.  That it is the cardinal principle of interpretation not to brush  aside
a word used in a statute or in a Notification issued  under  a  statute  and
that full effect must be given to the every word of an instrument  had  been
underscored by this  Court  in  The  South  Central  Railway  Employees  Co-
operative Credit Society Employees Union, Secundrabad vs. The  Registrar  of
Co-operative  Societies  &  Ors.  reported  in  (1998)  2  SCC   580.    The
Notification in the instant case being apparently  statutory  in  nature  is
akin to subordinate legislation to actualize  and  advance  the  legislative
intent engrafted in Section 55A.  It not only owes its existence to the  Act
but would also be amenable to  the  cardinal  principles  of  interpretation
adverted to herein above.

24.  In the overall legal and factual perspectives as obtained  herein,  any
endeavour to drag the works contract involved within the framework of  Entry
No.2 would be  repugnant  to  the  basic  principles  of  interpretation  of
statutes and subordinate legislations like the statutory Notification  under
Section 55A of the Act. To exclude the work of fabrication  from  the  works
contract as per the work order would render it  (works  contract)  truncated
to a form not intended by the customer.  This would strike as  well  at  the
root  of  the  mandate  of  correlation  of  a  works   contract   and   the
corresponding composition rate of tax as envisaged by  Section  55A  of  the
Act and the Notification issued thereunder.

25.  The decision of this Court in Sanden Vikas (India)  Ltd.(supra)  is  of
no avail to the revenue vis--vis the issue falling for scrutiny herein.

26. In the face of the determinations made  herein  above,  the  inescapable
conclusion is that  the  appellant's  works  contract  for  fabrication  and
installation of water chilling plant at the factory of  Anupam  Colours  and
Chemicals at  Vapi  would  fall  under  Entry  5  of  the  Schedule  to  the
Notification dated 18.10.1993 issued under Section 55A of the Act and  would
be taxable at the rate of 5% as prescribed thereby.  The  impugned  decision
dated 4.9.2006 of the High Court  of  Gujarat  at  Ahmedabad  in  Sales  Tax
Reference  No.1/2004  and  Special  Civil  Appeal  No.12508/2002  and  other
determinations as are contrary to the views expressed herein are hereby  set

27.  The Civil Appeal is allowed.


        (Arun Mishra)

       (Amitava Roy)
New Delhi,
Dated:  April 8, 2015

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.