Works-contract registration limited to resale goods cannot cover turnkey services; security and seizure provisions were upheld.

A dealer registered only for sale and purchase of specified goods for resale cannot be treated as registered for works-contract services unless the registration expressly covers that activity. A reference to the dealer as a works contractor in an assessment order does not, by itself, confer such registration. On that footing, the assessing authority was entitled to treat the petitioner as an unregistered dealer for the turnkey installation transaction and to invoke the security and seizure provisions. The challenge to the notices and security orders therefore failed, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, though registered as a dealer for sale and purchase of goods for resale, could claim to be registered as a works contractor for rendering services under a turnkey contract, and whether the seizure of goods and imposition of security under section 15A(9) of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962, were justified.

Analysis: The registration certificate showed that the petitioner was registered only to deal in specified goods for use in resale. That limited registration did not amount to registration as a works contractor or as a dealer entitled to render services within the meaning of the Act. The reference to the petitioner as a works contractor in an assessment order did not confer such registration in the absence of any specific adjudication or grant of registration for that purpose. Although the contract involved installation of C.T. scanners on a turnkey basis and the statute treated the relevant services as goods and sale for its purposes, the petitioner's actual registration remained confined to resale of goods and did not extend to the works-contract services undertaken under the agreement. The assessing authority was therefore justified in treating the petitioner as an unregistered dealer for the purpose of the impugned transaction and in invoking section 15A(9).

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to avoid security under section 15A(9), and the seizure and orders imposing security were valid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the statutory notices and security orders failed, and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer registered only for resale of specified goods cannot be treated as registered for works-contract services unless the registration specifically covers that activity, and security provisions may be invoked against such a dealer when the transaction is otherwise taxable.

---