Composite works contract classification upheld where pipe laying was integrated with substantial civil works and revisional limitation ran from the operative order.

A works contract for laying clear water transmission mains, together with fabrication of pipes and substantial civil works such as pipe bridges, supports, anchor blocks, valve chambers, trenching and excavation, was held to have an integrated composite character and could not be confined to mere pipe laying under entry 20(ii) of the Sixth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957; it was correctly classified under entry 44. The Commissioner's suo motu revisional order was also held to be within limitation under section 22A(3), because the prior appellate order had merged into the operative order and the four-year period ran from that order. The challenge to both classification and revisional jurisdiction therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the works contract for laying clear water transmission mains with associated civil works fell within entry 20(ii) of the Sixth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 or constituted a composite contract under entry 44 of the Sixth Schedule; (ii) Whether the Commissioner's suo motu revisional order was barred by limitation under section 22A(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Issue (i): Whether the works contract for laying clear water transmission mains with associated civil works fell within entry 20(ii) of the Sixth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 or constituted a composite contract under entry 44 of the Sixth Schedule.

Analysis: The contract encompassed fabrication of pipes from supplied steel plates, laying and jointing of the pipeline, and substantial associated civil works, including construction of pipe bridges, pedestal supports, anchor blocks, valve chambers, an overhead tank, trenching, excavating, and related supporting works. The nature and scope of the work showed that the pipeline activity was not isolated, but formed part of a larger integrated execution involving several categories of work. On that basis, the dominant character of the contract could not be confined to mere pipe laying under entry 20(ii).

Conclusion: The work was rightly treated as a composite contract falling under entry 44 of the Sixth Schedule, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner's suo motu revisional order was barred by limitation under section 22A(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: The earlier appellate order had merged with the subsequent revisional order, and the Commissioner exercised revisional jurisdiction within the statutory four-year period counted from the operative order. In those circumstances, the challenge based on limitation was untenable.

Conclusion: The revisional order was not barred by limitation, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The assessment made by the Revenue authorities was sustained, and the challenge to both the classification of the works contract and the exercise of revisional jurisdiction failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a contract includes substantial civil and allied works beyond mere laying of pipes, it may be classified as a composite works contract; and for limitation under revisional power, the operative order after merger governs the period of exercise of jurisdiction.

---