Strict interpretation of taxing entries excludes road asphalting from the works contract schedule, defeating tax and penalty liability.

Strict construction of the taxing entry meant that asphalting of roads could not be brought within item 6 of the Sixth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act merely by relying on the broader definition of works contract. The entry referred to civil works such as construction of buildings, bridges and roads, and its language did not clearly extend to mere asphalting or repair work; the tax demand under section 5B was therefore unsustainable. As the penalty under section 12-B(4) depended on a lawful tax liability, once the demand failed the penalty also fell. The assessments, appellate order and Tribunal order were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether asphalting of roads falls within item 6 of the Sixth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 so as to attract tax under section 5B; (ii) Whether penalty levied under section 12-B(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether asphalting of roads falls within item 6 of the Sixth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 so as to attract tax under section 5B.

Analysis: Item 6 spoke of civil works like construction of buildings, bridges and roads, and the statutory definition of works contract included repair and similar activity; however, the power to tax had to be gathered from the charging provision and the schedule entry itself. Being a taxing provision, the entry had to be construed strictly, without adding words or expanding the language beyond its natural meaning. The illustrative word "like" indicated that the dominant element was construction, and the entry could not be stretched to include mere asphalting or repair of roads. The general definition of works contract could not enlarge the specific charging entry.

Conclusion: Asphalting of roads did not fall within item 6, and the tax demand was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty levied under section 12-B(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 was sustainable.

Analysis: The penalty was founded on the assumption that tax was lawfully payable on the road-asphalting work. Once the tax demand itself was held unsustainable, the foundation for penalty disappeared.

Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The assessments, appellate order and Tribunal order were set aside, and the petitions were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A specific taxing entry must be construed strictly, and where the language of the entry does not clearly cover the activity, the court cannot expand it by implication or by reference to a general definitional provision.

---