Works contract deduction rule upheld as a valid condition within delegated tax rule-making power.

Article 366(29-A)(b) and section 5-B recognise tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in a works contract, including where goods are transferred in another form. A deduction rule, however, may validly prescribe conditions for claiming relief. Explanation III to rule 6(4)(m), which limited deduction to goods used in the same form in which they were purchased, was treated as a permissible regulatory condition within delegated rule-making power and not as an unconstitutional restriction on the charging provision. The challenge therefore failed, and the rule was upheld as valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether Explanation III to rule 6(4)(m) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957, restricting deduction to goods used in the execution of works contract in the same form in which they were purchased, was beyond the rule-making power and unconstitutional in view of article 366(29-A)(b) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 366(29-A)(b) and section 5-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 recognise the legislative power to levy tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract, including where the goods are transferred in another form. The challenge, however, was to a deduction rule and not to the charging provision. The delegated rule-making authority was competent to prescribe the conditions on which a deduction or exemption would be available. Limiting the deduction to goods used in the same form was treated as an incidental regulatory choice within the rule-making power, and the absence of a deduction for goods converted into another form did not render the rule ultra vires.

Conclusion: Explanation III to rule 6(4)(m) was upheld as valid and within legislative competence. The challenge failed.

---