Works contract tax entry upheld where liability arises only on transfer of goods in maintenance contracts; writ challenge refused.

Entry 21 of the Sixth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is valid when read with section 5-B and article 366(29A)(b), because it applies only to the transfer of property in goods involved in a works contract and not to pure services; the challenge to its vires therefore fails. The Commissioner's clarification on computer maintenance is also within section 5-B, since tax is attracted only where the contract involves transfer of goods, so the clarification is valid. The writ court declined to quash the assessment orders because the same statutory challenge failed and the remaining disputes concerned factual questions better left to the appellate authority; writ relief was therefore refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether entry 21 of the Sixth Schedule appended to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 is ultra vires section 5-B of the Act or article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes that maintenance of computers involving transfer of goods falls within entry 21 is beyond the scope of section 5-B of the Act. (iii) Whether the impugned assessment orders were liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether entry 21 of the Sixth Schedule appended to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 is ultra vires section 5-B of the Act or article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 5-B levies tax only on the transfer of property in goods, whether as goods or in some other form, involved in execution of works contracts. Read with article 366(29A)(b), the charging provision does not authorise taxation of pure services, but it does permit levy where service and maintenance contracts involve transfer of property in goods. Entry 21, when read with section 5-B, is confined to that taxable element and does not authorise taxation of services simpliciter. The possibility that some contracts may involve no transfer of goods is a matter for factual determination by the assessing authority and does not render the entry unconstitutional.

Conclusion: Entry 21 is not ultra vires section 5-B of the Act or article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution of India; the challenge fails.

Issue (ii): Whether the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes that maintenance of computers involving transfer of goods falls within entry 21 is beyond the scope of section 5-B of the Act.

Analysis: The clarification merely states that where a maintenance contract for computers involves transfer of property in goods, tax is leviable at the prescribed rate under entry 21. That position is consistent with section 5-B and entry 21, because liability depends on the existence of transfer of property in goods in the works contract and not on service alone.

Conclusion: The clarification is within the scope of section 5-B of the Act and is valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned assessment orders were liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge to the assessments substantially turned on the same issue of statutory validity, which failed. On the merits of individual assessments, the petitioners had an effective statutory remedy by way of appeal, and the disputed factual questions regarding the nature of the contracts and the extent of transfer of goods were matters for the appellate authority. The writ court therefore declined interference.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were not liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue the statutory appellate remedy on the assessment-related grievances.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax entry concerning service and maintenance contracts is valid if it operates only on the transfer of property in goods involved in execution of the works contract; the existence of taxable transfer is to be determined on the facts of each case by the assessing authority, and writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be used to bypass the statutory appeal remedy.

---