Works contract classification turns on the actual nature and composite character of each work order, not labels alone.

Classification of a works contract under the VAT schedule must be based on the actual nature and composite character of the work orders, not a broad label alone. Fabrication and erection of structural works under Entry 4 did not automatically cover glazing, ACP cladding, curtain walling, or interior cabin and partition work, and the record required an independent examination of each component. The distinction between composite contracts under Entries 22 and 23 also had to be applied on the basis of the constituent works. The Tribunal's contrary view lacked such analysis, so its orders were set aside and the matter was restored for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the works executed by the assessees were covered only by Entry 4 of the Sixth Schedule as "structural works" or whether parts of the contracts fell outside Entry 4. (ii) Whether the contracts were composite contracts falling under Entry 23 of the Sixth Schedule.

Issue (i): Whether the works executed by the assessees were covered only by Entry 4 of the Sixth Schedule as "structural works" or whether parts of the contracts fell outside Entry 4.

Analysis: Entry 4 covers fabrication and erection of structural works, but the nature of the activities described by the record included glazing, ACP cladding, curtain walling and interior cabin work. The Court held that ACP cladding and similar exterior beautification work on an existing wall would not, by itself, amount to structural works, while some glazing arrangements may function as a substitute for an external wall. The construction of cabins and interior partitions was treated as interior work rather than structural work. The Tribunal had not examined the nature of the works in this manner and had not given independent reasons for treating the contracts as falling only under Entry 4.

Conclusion: The contracts could not be treated as falling only under Entry 4 on the material before the Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the contracts were composite contracts falling under Entry 23 of the Sixth Schedule.

Analysis: Entry 22 and Entry 23 operate on different footing: Entry 22 covers composite contracts involving two or more specified categories, while Entry 23 covers all other works not specified in the earlier entries, including composite contracts combining unspecified works with specified categories. The Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority had analysed the individual work orders and recorded concurrent findings that the contracts involved multiple components falling under Entries 3, 4 and 23. The Tribunal reversed those findings without undertaking an independent analysis of whether the works were composite in nature or whether portions fell under other entries combined with non-specified work.

Conclusion: The finding that the contracts were not composite contracts was not sustained, and the matter required fresh examination.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's orders were set aside and the appeals were restored for fresh decision in accordance with law, leaving all contentions open.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification of a works contract under the VAT schedule must turn on the actual nature and composite character of the work order, and a conclusion rejecting or accepting a schedule entry cannot stand unless supported by an independent analysis of the constituent works.

---