9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner who carried on the works of painting and colouring under a works contract dated January 24, 1995 is the question for consideration in this petition. Briefly, sub-section (1) of section 8-D of the Act states that every person responsible for making payment to any contractor for discharge of any liability on account of valuable consideration payable for transfer of property in g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aning of "works contract" of type No. 6 or of any other type as specified in a notification dated April 27, 1987, the stand of the respondent is that the contractual activity of the petitioner falls within the works contract of type No. 6 as specified in a notification dated April 27, 1987. The question for consideration is whether the contract of colouring and painting, admittedly carried out by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which have been stated at serial No. 6 of the notification. This is clear from the principle of ejusdem generis which has to be applied to interpret the civil works as specified at serial No. 6 of a notification dated April 27, 1987. Applying the said principle, it must be held that only those works which are in the nature of the works as specified at serial No. 6 are civil works. The words "civil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... words. From the illustrative words occurring in serial No. 6 of the notification, it is manifest that the element of "construction" is predominant and the works not involving that element cannot be said to be civil works in serial No. 6 of the notification. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the contractual activity of the petitioner is not covered by the civil works as defined in s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can it be said that the works carried out by the petitioner are of the nature of civil works under clause (6) of the notification. Before us, counsel for the petitioner clearly stated that benefit of scheme under section 7-D is not sought and, therefore, we do not go into that question. The petitioner confines its case only to section 8-D of the Act. On the premises, the petition succeeds and is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
