Works contract taxability and provisional attachment: writ declined on disputed facts, but overlong attachment under VAT law was quashed.

A project agreement's characterisation as a works contract or a sale for sales tax/VAT purposes depended on the full contractual matrix and surrounding facts, so the High Court declined to determine taxability in writ jurisdiction at the assessment stage and relegated the parties to the statutory assessment process. The Court held that, where the dispute raised mixed questions of fact and law and the statute provided an effective machinery of assessment, appeal and revision, merits should not be decided on an incomplete record. It also held that a provisional attachment under section 45 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act could not continue beyond its statutory life, and quashed the attachment with a direction to return deposited amounts with interest, if any.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners' project agreement constituted a works contract or sale attracting sales tax/value added tax, and whether the writ petition should be entertained at the assessment stage; (ii) Whether the provisional attachment order passed under section 45 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could survive.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners' project agreement constituted a works contract or sale attracting sales tax/value added tax, and whether the writ petition should be entertained at the assessment stage.

Analysis: The nature of the transaction depended on the entire contract and its surrounding circumstances, and the correct characterisation could not be made in the first instance in writ jurisdiction on an incomplete factual record. The statutory scheme under the sales tax law and the VAT law provided a complete machinery for assessment, appeal and revision, and the petitioners had adequate opportunity to place all relevant materials before the assessing authority. In such revenue matters, where the issue involved mixed questions of fact and law, the Court declined to decide the taxability controversy directly.

Conclusion: The Court declined to entertain the writ petition on the taxability issue and relegated the petitioners to the statutory assessment proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisional attachment order passed under section 45 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could survive.

Analysis: Section 45 contemplated only a provisional attachment with a limited life, and the attachment in question had outlived that statutory period. In the meantime, assessment had not progressed to finality, and the interim arrangement did not justify retention of the attachment beyond the period permitted by law.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment order was quashed and the amounts deposited pursuant to the interim order were directed to be returned with accrued interest, if any.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the limited extent of setting aside the provisional attachment, while the substantive tax liability dispute was left to be decided by the statutory authorities in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the taxability of a transaction turns on disputed facts and the statute provides an efficacious assessment-and-appeal mechanism, the writ court should ordinarily decline to decide the merits at the threshold; a provisional attachment cannot continue beyond the period authorised by the governing statute.

---