Works contract tax validity upheld where levy was confined to goods value and constitutional trade restrictions were preserved.

Maharashtra works contract tax legislation was analysed against the State's taxing power after the Forty-sixth Amendment and article 286 restrictions. The legislation was treated as valid because it excluded sales outside the State, in the course of import or export, and in inter-State trade, so the constitutional objection based on legislative competence failed. Section 6 of the 1989 Act and the 1991 amendment were also upheld because the levy was on the value of goods involved in execution of the contract, the deduction mechanism was held rational, and the legislature was not required to extend double-taxation relief retrospectively.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Maharashtra Works Contracts legislation was invalid for want of legislative competence or for violating article 286 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether section 6 of the 1989 Act, and the 1991 amendment dealing with the measure of tax and deduction conditions, was unconstitutional on the ground of impermissible measure of tax or double taxation.

Issue (i): Whether the Maharashtra Works Contracts legislation was invalid for want of legislative competence or for violating article 286 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The constitutional scheme after the Forty-sixth Amendment permitted the State to levy tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in execution of works contracts, but such power remained subject to the restrictions in article 286. Section 10 of the 1989 Act expressly excluded sales outside the State, in the course of import or export, and in inter-State trade or commerce. The challenge that article 286 had been bypassed therefore could not succeed.

Conclusion: The legislation was not invalid for want of legislative competence or for breach of article 286, and this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether section 6 of the 1989 Act, and the 1991 amendment dealing with the measure of tax and deduction conditions, was unconstitutional on the ground of impermissible measure of tax or double taxation.

Analysis: The levy was on the value of goods involved in the works contract, and the method of determining that value did not affect the validity of the charging provision. The Court accepted that the value had to be worked out with reference to incorporation of goods in the works, not with reference to the contractor's cost of acquisition. The condition requiring goods to be sold in the same form for deduction was held to be rational and not arbitrary. The Court also held that the Legislature was not bound to remove the double-taxation relief retrospectively, and the fact that the 1991 amendment operated only from 1 January 1992 did not render it invalid.

Conclusion: Section 6 and the 1991 amendment were upheld, and this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the validity of the works contract tax legislation failed in its entirety, and the writ petition was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A works contract tax is valid if it is confined to the value of goods involved in the execution of the contract and remains within the constitutional restrictions on State taxing power, while the legislature has discretion in structuring deductions and the effective date of relief from double taxation.

---