Works contract composition exclusion turns on outside-State purchase and use, not transfer of property to the customer.

Revision under section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 can be invoked only where the appellate order is erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue; the revisional authority could not add a transfer-of-title requirement not found in section 17(7), so its interference was unsustainable. On composition under section 17(6) read with section 17(7), the statutory exclusion applies when a dealer purchases or receives goods from outside the State and uses them in executing a works contract; no further condition that property in the goods must pass to the customer can be read into the provision. The exclusion turns on purchase and use, not transfer to the customer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority was justified in invoking revision under section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 to interfere with the appellate order; (ii) Whether a dealer who purchased machinery spares from outside the State and used them in the execution of works contract was disentitled to composition assessment under section 17(6) read with section 17(7) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority was justified in invoking revision under section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 to interfere with the appellate order.

Analysis: The revisional power could be exercised only if the appellate order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The appellate authority had found, on the material before it, that the assessees had purchased goods from outside the State and used them in the execution of works contracts, and on that basis had proceeded to assess the matter under section 5B. The revisional authority interfered by reading into the provision a requirement that the goods must also be transferred to the customer, although no such condition is found in section 17(7). That approach amounted to rewriting the statutory text and resting revision on an incorrect understanding of the scheme.

Conclusion: The invocation of revision was not justified and the revisional order was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether a dealer who purchased machinery spares from outside the State and used them in the execution of works contract was disentitled to composition assessment under section 17(6) read with section 17(7) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: Section 17(6) grants composition in respect of works contracts, while section 17(7) excludes its application where the dealer purchases or receives goods from outside the State for the purpose of using such goods in execution of works contract. The exclusion turns on the source of the goods and their use in the works contract, not on any further requirement that title in the goods must pass to the customer. The charging provision under section 5B deals with transfer of property in goods involved in execution of works contracts, but section 17(7) is framed more broadly and does not incorporate a transfer requirement. The benefit of composition is therefore unavailable once the statutory exclusion is attracted.

Conclusion: The assessees remained entitled to the composition scheme because the revisional authority wrongly added a transfer-of-title condition not found in section 17(7).

Final Conclusion: The statutory exclusion in section 17(7) does not depend on transfer of property to the customer, and the impugned revisional orders could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a composition scheme is made inapplicable to a dealer who purchases or receives goods from outside the State for use in execution of a works contract, the exclusion operates on the fact of such purchase or receipt and use, and no additional requirement of transfer of property in those goods to the customer can be read into the provision.

---