2017 (11) TMI 1786 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of tax and penalty - Section 7AA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 - Whether Works contract given to the assessee is divisible in nature? - Held that - By virtue of the Forty Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, a single and indivisible contract is now brought on par with a contract containing two separate agreements. It has also now become a settled position in law that the State Governments have power to levy sales tax on value of material in execution of the works contract. This position is brought about by creating friction whereby the transfer of moveable property in a works contract is deemed to be sale, even though it may not be well within the meaning of Sale of Goods Act. In the present case, the assessing authority, after scrutinising the agreement in question between the assessee and the State Government, returned a finding of fact that manufacture and supply of PSC pipes, jointing material specials, valves, anchor blocks, etc. do not fall within the scopes of buildings, bridges, dams, roads and canals. It was also held that the agreement was clearly in two parts, namely, (i) sale and supply of PSC pipes, jointing material specials, valves, anchor blocks, etc. and (ii) the remaining part being supply of labour and services. The assessee has, in fact, admitted that it had no grievance against the finding that supply of pipes was nothing but the sale of pipes involved in the execution of the contracts and, therefore, it was excisable to sales tax. In view of the findings recorded by the authorities below, this element of sale of goods shall apply to jointing material specials, valves, anchor blocks, etc. as well. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the works contract given to the assessee is divisible in nature.
2. Justifiability and sustainability of the imposition of tax and penalty under Section 7AA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Divisibility of the Works Contract:
The core issue in these appeals is whether the works contract awarded to the assessee is divisible in nature. The assessee, M/s. India Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., engaged in manufacturing and laying pipelines, argued that the contract was a single, composite contract for laying pipelines, which should not be treated as divisible. The High Court, however, examined the nature of the contract and concluded that substantial parts of the contract pertained to the cost of PSC pipes and other materials manufactured by the assessee, thus affirming the findings of the authorities that the contract was divisible. The Supreme Court agreed with this approach, noting that the findings of fact by the lower authorities and the High Court did not require interference. The Court distinguished the present case from the Kone Elevator India Private Limited case, emphasizing that the latter dealt with determining whether a contract was a works contract under Article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution, whereas the present issue was about the divisibility of an already acknowledged works contract.

2. Imposition of Tax and Penalty under Section 7AA:
The assessee sought exemption from paying tax under Section 7AA, arguing that the contract was indivisible and thus should not be subjected to sales tax. The Commercial Tax Officer rejected this application, treating 75% of the contract value as consideration for the sale of goods. The appellate authority, Single Judge, and Division Bench of the High Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court noted that the State Government's notifications and the legislative and constitutional amendments allowed for the segregation of the goods component in a works contract for tax purposes. The Court referred to the Pro Lab case, which clarified that after the Forty-Sixth Amendment, a single, indivisible contract could be bifurcated into parts for sale of goods and services, making the goods component subject to sales tax. The Court concluded that the assessing authority's findings, upheld by the appellate authorities and the High Court, were correct and that the imposition of tax and penalties under Section 7AA was justified and sustainable in law.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's judgment that the works contract was divisible, and the imposition of tax and penalties under Section 7AA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, was in accordance with the law.