2015 (4) TMI 427 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Supreme Court: Works Contract Classified Under Entry No.5 for 5% Tax Rate

The Supreme Court held that the appellant's works contract for the fabrication and installation of a water chilling plant should be classified under Entry ... Classification - Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant's works contract for fabrication and installation of air-conditioning plants falls under Entry 2 and, therefore, taxable at the rate of 15% and not under Entry 5 under which it is taxable at the rate of 5% of the Schedule to the notification dated 18.10.93 issued under Section 55A of the Gujarat Sales Act, 1969 - Held that:- The competing entries requiring scrutiny to ascertain the correct composition rate of tax payable vis-`-vis the works contract involved are engrafted admittedly in the Notification issued by the Government of Gujarat in exercise of powers conferred by Section 55A of the Act. Logically thus, the interpretation necessitated by the rival orientations ought to be in furtherance of the underlying objective of the said provision. A plain perusal thereof would attest that thereby, in the circumstances to be prescribed, a dealer can be left at his option to pay in lieu of the amount of tax payable, a lump sum by way of composition, at the rate or rates as may be fixed by the State Government having regard to the incidence of tax on the nature of the goods involved in the execution of total value of the works contract. Unmistakably, therefore, the State Government while fixing the composition rate of tax has to be mindful of the nature of the works contract executed and by no means can be oblivious thereof. Further, a composition rate of tax is in lieu of the amount of levy otherwise payable by the dealer under the Act. Work order in clear terms did enjoin that the design parameters pertaining to tonnage of refrigeration, final temperature of the water to be made available for the process of manufacturing pigments and the quantity of the chilled water essential therefor were indispensable and were in addition to the other specifications as offered by the appellant. The rigour of the insistence for the adherence to the design parameters is patent also from the request of the customer requiring the appellant to provide it with the lay out detail, foundation drawing and other necessary information essential for the erection of the water chilling plant. The exercise as a whole as contemplated by the work order thus was neither intended nor can be reduced to mere installation of the finally emerging apparatus. The work order noticeably did not refer to any readymade or instantly available devices, meeting the requirements of the customer so much so to be only installed at its factory. Instead, the work order had been apparently tailor-made to the requirements from which no departure was intended or comprehended. It is in this perspective that the word 'fabrication' appearing in Entry No.5 of the Notification assumes a decisive significance. In the overall legal and factual perspectives as obtained herein, any endeavour to drag the works contract involved within the framework of Entry No.2 would be repugnant to the basic principles of interpretation of statutes and subordinate legislations like the statutory Notification under Section 55A of the Act. To exclude the work of fabrication from the works contract as per the work order would render it (works contract) truncated to a form not intended by the customer. This would strike as well at the root of the mandate of correlation of a works contract and the corresponding composition rate of tax as envisaged by Section 55A of the Act and the Notification issued thereunder. - the inescapable conclusion is that the appellant's works contract for fabrication and installation of water chilling plant at the factory of Anupam Colours and Chemicals at Vapi would fall under Entry 5 of the Schedule to the Notification dated 18.10.1993 issued under Section 55A of the Act and would be taxable at the rate of 5% as prescribed thereby. The impugned decision of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in [2006 (9) TMI 519 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and other determinations as are contrary to the views expressed herein are hereby set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved1. Classification of the works contract for tax liability.2. Interpretation of relevant entries in the Notification issued under Section 55A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.3. Determination of the applicable composition rate of tax for the works contract.Detailed Analysis1. Classification of the Works Contract for Tax LiabilityThe appellant, M/s. Voltas Ltd., engaged in the business of design, supply, and installation of air-conditioning plants, was involved in a works contract for the installation of a water chilling plant. The primary issue was whether this contract should be classified under Entry No.2 (installation of air-conditioners and AC coolers) or Entry No.5 (fabrication and installation of plant and machinery) of the Notification issued under Section 55A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.2. Interpretation of Relevant Entries in the Notification Issued Under Section 55AThe Notification issued by the Government of Gujarat under Section 55A provided different composition rates for various types of works contracts. Entry No.2 prescribed a 15% rate for the installation of air-conditioners and AC coolers, whereas Entry No.5 prescribed a 5% rate for the fabrication and installation of plant and machinery. The appellant contended that the works contract involved fabrication and installation of a water chilling plant, thus falling under Entry No.5. The revenue authorities, however, classified it under Entry No.2, leading to a higher tax liability.3. Determination of the Applicable Composition Rate of Tax for the Works ContractThe Supreme Court scrutinized the work order, which detailed the design parameters and specifications required for the water chilling plant. The Court noted that the work order emphasized the need for fabrication according to specific design parameters, which involved more than mere installation. It required the appellant to provide layout details, foundation drawings, and other necessary information for the erection of the plant, indicating a significant fabrication component.The Court emphasized that the term 'fabrication' in Entry No.5 was crucial and should not be overlooked. The legislative intent of Section 55A was to maintain a direct correlation between the nature of the works contract and the corresponding composition rate of tax. The Court found that the High Court had erred by not considering the fabrication aspect and by treating the works contract as falling under Entry No.2 based on a general comparison of air-conditioning devices.The Supreme Court concluded that the works contract involved significant fabrication work, making it fall squarely within the ambit of Entry No.5. The Court highlighted the importance of interpreting taxing statutes based on clear and unambiguous language, and in case of doubt, adopting the construction most beneficial to the taxpayer.ConclusionThe Supreme Court held that the appellant's works contract for the fabrication and installation of a water chilling plant should be classified under Entry No.5 of the Notification, attracting a 5% composition rate of tax. The High Court's decision was set aside, and the civil appeal was allowed.