Work contracts tax deductions and reassessment limitation under the Bihar Finance Act invalidated the assessments.

Section 21(1)(a)(i) read with rule 13A of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was applied to works contracts involving air-conditioning plants, but the Court accepted the view that the scheme was not workable because it did not prescribe a proper method for deductions relating to labour and other charges; the resulting assessment could not stand. For the later assessment years, section 24 required reassessment pursuant to an appellate order to be initiated and completed within two years from communication of that order. As the reassessment orders were passed well after that period, they were held time-barred and illegal, with consequential notices also falling.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 21(1)(a)(i) read with rule 13A of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was workable and valid for determining taxable turnover in respect of works contracts involving air-conditioning plants. (ii) Whether the reassessment orders passed after remand in the three later assessment years were barred by limitation under section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981.

Issue (i): Whether section 21(1)(a)(i) read with rule 13A of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was workable and valid for determining taxable turnover in respect of works contracts involving air-conditioning plants.

Analysis: After the Forty-sixth Amendment and article 366(29A) of the Constitution of India, tax may be levied on the value of goods involved in a works contract, but the State must provide a workable method for determining deductions relating to labour and other charges. The provision under consideration was applied in the light of the earlier Patna High Court view that the statutory scheme was not workable because the manner and extent of deductions for "any other charges" had not been prescribed. The Court accepted that reasoning and held that the same statutory provision, as applied in Jharkhand, suffered from the same defect.

Conclusion: The provision was held not workable in the absence of prescribed deductions for other charges, and the assessee was entitled to similar relief.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment orders passed after remand in the three later assessment years were barred by limitation under section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981.

Analysis: Section 24 required reassessment pursuant to an appellate order to be initiated and completed within two years from the date of communication of that order to the assessing authority. On the admitted and record-based facts, the appellate order was communicated on 5 November 1998, so the limitation expired on 5 November 2000. The reassessment orders were nevertheless passed on 27 November 2004, and the consequential notices followed thereafter. The Court therefore treated the reassessments as time-barred and illegal.

Conclusion: The reassessment orders and consequential notices were held to be barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment and reassessment actions could not be sustained, and the writ petitions succeeded with consequential protection against recovery proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing provision governing works-contract deductions does not prescribe a workable method for deductions that the statute requires to be determined by rule, the assessment based on such an incomplete scheme cannot stand; additionally, a reassessment made beyond the statutory period counted from communication of the appellate order is void.

---