Works contract taxation must follow the applicable entry for each good; later provisions cannot apply to an earlier year.

Later-inserted provisions under the Karnataka Value Added Tax framework could not be applied to assessment year 2005-06, because the charging provision for works contracts operated only from 01.04.2006 and the related civil works requirement under Section 29(4) and the rule came into force only from 01.04.2007. In works contract valuation, iron and steel transferred in the same form fell within the declared goods entry and were taxable at 4%. A blanket levy of 12.5% on the remaining turnover was unsustainable because no proper valuation of the individual materials was available; taxation had to be determined according to the applicable schedule rates for each class of goods.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the provisions inserted with effect from 01.04.2006 and 01.04.2007 could be applied to the assessment year 2005-06 in a works contract case; (ii) whether iron and steel transferred in the same form were taxable at 4% and whether the remaining goods in the works contract could be brought to tax at 12.5% without proper valuation.

Issue (i): whether the provisions inserted with effect from 01.04.2006 and 01.04.2007 could be applied to the assessment year 2005-06 in a works contract case.

Analysis: The liability under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for works contract arose under the charging provision inserted from 01.04.2006. The requirement in Section 29(4) of the Act and the corresponding rule governing civil works contracts came into force only from 01.04.2007 and therefore could not govern the assessment year 2005-06. The authorities erred in applying later inserted provisions to an earlier year.

Conclusion: The later inserted provisions were inapplicable to the assessment year 2005-06.

Issue (ii): whether iron and steel transferred in the same form were taxable at 4% and whether the remaining goods in the works contract could be brought to tax at 12.5% without proper valuation.

Analysis: Iron and steel fell within the declared goods entry and were taxable at 4% when transferred in the same form. For other materials such as cement, PVC pipes and RCC pipes, no proper material or valuation was available before the authorities to justify a uniform levy at 12.5% on the entire remaining turnover. The direction to tax the remaining turnover at 12.5% was therefore unsustainable, and the matter required valuation according to the applicable schedule rates for the relevant goods.

Conclusion: Iron and steel were liable at 4%, while the blanket levy of 12.5% on the remaining turnover was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the limited extent of displacing the uniform 12.5% levy on the balance turnover, while leaving the 4% treatment for iron and steel undisturbed and requiring reassessment of the other goods according to their proper schedule rates.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisions introducing a new tax incidence or procedure cannot be applied retrospectively to an earlier assessment year, and works contract turnover must be valued and taxed according to the specific entry applicable to each class of goods rather than by a blanket rate.

---