Import-linked turnover, works contract service components, and subcontractor deductions must be assessed under the governing tax rules.

Turnover attributable to imports under an overseas contract cannot be included in gross turnover where the import is occasioned by, and inextricably linked to, the sale, because Article 286 bars State taxation on such transactions. Design and engineering charges in a works contract are part of the service component and are excluded from the taxable value, so their disallowance was unsustainable. Turnover relating to sub-contractors is deductible when the governing rule and proof of tax payment are satisfied; where the record was not properly examined, the matter required fresh determination on that limited issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the turnover relating to the overseas part of the contract could be included in the gross turnover when the goods were imported pursuant to the contract; (ii) whether the deduction claimed towards design and engineering charges from a works contract was rightly disallowed; (iii) whether the turnover relatable to work executed through sub-contractors could be added to the petitioner's turnover despite proof of tax deduction and deposit.

Issue (i): Whether the turnover relating to the overseas part of the contract could be included in the gross turnover when the goods were imported pursuant to the contract.

Analysis: Article 286 of the Constitution of India prohibits State taxation on sales or purchases taking place in the course of import or export. The governing test is whether there is an integral connection or inextricable link between the sale and the import, so that the import is occasioned by the contract of sale. On the facts, the imports were made pursuant to the contractual arrangement and in the context of the overseas part of the transaction.

Conclusion: The addition of the overseas turnover to the gross turnover was illegal and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the deduction claimed towards design and engineering charges from a works contract was rightly disallowed.

Analysis: Under the statutory concept of works contract, only the value of goods involved in execution is taxable, while labour and service components are excluded from the taxable measure. Planning, design, and architect fees form part of the service component and are not to be included in the value of the works contract for tax purposes.

Conclusion: The disallowance of deduction for design and engineering charges was incorrect and was liable to be set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the turnover relatable to work executed through sub-contractors could be added to the petitioner's turnover despite proof of tax deduction and deposit.

Analysis: The relevant rule permits deduction of turnover relatable to sub-contractors where proof of payment of tax is produced. The controversy turned on factual appreciation of the materials showing whether the sub-contractors' turnover had already suffered tax and whether the supporting proof was sufficient. Such an enquiry was not adequately undertaken by the assessing authority and required fresh consideration.

Conclusion: The addition on this count was set aside and the matter was remitted for redetermination in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was interfered with to the extent that the overseas turnover and design and engineering disallowance were rejected, while the subcontractor-related deduction issue was sent back for fresh decision by the assessing authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale is taxable in the course of import only where the import is occasioned by, and inextricably linked to, the contract of sale, and service components such as design and engineering in a works contract are excluded from the taxable turnover; subcontractor-related turnover is deductible where the governing rule and proof of tax payment are satisfied.

---