Works-contract turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act can be computed using State assessment machinery when Central rules are absent.

In inter-State works contracts under the Central Sales Tax Act, the absence of separate Central rules for determining sale price and turnover did not prevent assessment. Section 9(2) permits State authorities to use the State sales tax machinery for assessment and enforcement under the Central Act, and Section 13(3) allows State rules consistent with the Act and Central rules. Where the charging provision exists and the State rules provide a workable method for computing works-contract turnover, the State computation provisions may be applied by reference. The levy is not defeated merely because no separate Central computation rules were framed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of specific Central rules for determination of sale price and turnover in respect of transfer of property in goods involved in a works contract in inter-State trade or commerce, the assessing authority could validly apply the State sales tax law and rules for computation and assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The definition of sale was amended to include transfer of property in goods involved in execution of a works contract, and the Act contained charging and turnover-determination provisions. Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 authorised State authorities to assess and enforce tax under the Central Act by exercising powers available under the general sales tax law of the State, and Section 13(3) empowered State Governments to frame rules not inconsistent with the Act and the Central rules. Rule 9 of the Central Sales Tax (U.P.) Rules, 1957 incorporated the U.P. Sales Tax Act and Rules for assessments under the Central Act, and Rule 44B of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Rules, 1948 provided the method for computing net turnover of works contracts. The absence of separate Central rules did not make the machinery unworkable, because the State machinery could be applied consistently with the Central Act for assessment and computation.

Conclusion: The turnover and assessment could be computed by applying the State Act and Rules, and the challenge that no tax could be levied for want of Central rules failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed and the assessment orders were sustained, with no separate order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the charging provision exists and the statute incorporates State assessment machinery by reference, the absence of separate Central computation rules does not nullify the levy if the State rules are not inconsistent with the Central Act.

---