Strict construction of civil works compounding upheld, with drains and culverts excluded and the compounding option treated as final.

Section 7(7) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was applied strictly to the civil works expressly listed in the provision, so construction of drains and culverts in road work was not treated as part of that category and remained taxable under section 7(7A). The assessee's filing of the prescribed Form No. 21B was treated as a binding exercise of the statutory compounding option, especially since notice of the proposed five per cent levy was issued and no objection was raised. Once that option was exercised in the prescribed form, it could not later be withdrawn in favour of regular assessment under section 5(1).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether construction of drains and culverts in the course of road work falls within civil works covered by section 7(7) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, or is taxable at the compounded rate under section 7(7A). (ii) Whether the assessee, having filed the prescribed form seeking permission to pay tax under the compounding scheme, could later claim regular assessment under section 5(1).

Issue (i): Whether construction of drains and culverts in the course of road work falls within civil works covered by section 7(7) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, or is taxable at the compounded rate under section 7(7A).

Analysis: The statutory list in section 7(7) was treated as specific and confined to the civil works expressly mentioned, such as buildings, bridges, roads, railway tracks and walls. The court declined to enlarge that list by adding drains and culverts, holding that those items were not included by the Legislature and therefore could not be treated as part of the category covered by section 7(7).

Conclusion: The construction of drains and culverts was held not to fall within section 7(7), and the levy under section 7(7A) was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee, having filed the prescribed form seeking permission to pay tax under the compounding scheme, could later claim regular assessment under section 5(1).

Analysis: The assessee had submitted the prescribed application in Form No. 21B and the record showed notice of the proposal to levy tax at five per cent, to which no objection was filed. On that basis, the option under the statutory compounding mechanism was treated as having been exercised. The court held that such statutory option, once exercised in the prescribed form, is final and binding and cannot later be withdrawn in favour of regular assessment.

Conclusion: The assessee was held bound by the compounding option and could not revert to assessment under section 5(1).

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the disputed work was outside section 7(7) and the assessee remained bound by the compounding election; the higher rate of tax was therefore sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute specifies the civil works eligible for compounding, the listed items must be strictly construed, and a statutory option to compound tax, once exercised in the prescribed form, is final and cannot be later displaced by a claim to regular assessment.

---