Works contract taxation before 1 April 2006 followed scheduled goods rates, not a residual uniform rate.

For the period before 1 April 2006, works contracts under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act were not governed by a residual uniform rate under Section 4(1)(b). The Court reasoned that the charging provisions, definitions, turnover rules, and schedules showed tax was payable on the relevant goods at their applicable scheduled rates, while declared goods remained subject to the Central Sales Tax framework. The later insertion of Section 4(1)(c) and the Sixth Schedule introduced a separate uniform works-contract rate only from 1 April 2006, showing the amendment was not merely declaratory. The State's appeal failed and the assessees' position was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the period prior to 1 April 2006, goods involved in the execution of works contracts under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act 2003 were taxable at the residual rate under Section 4(1)(b), or whether the statute then in force treated such contracts as attracting tax on the individual goods at the rates applicable to those goods.

Analysis: The charging scheme under Section 3, the inclusive definitions of "sale" and "goods", the computation of "turnover" and "taxable turnover", and Rule 3(1)(c) and Rule 3(2) showed that works contracts were taxable even before 1 April 2006. But the rate structure then in force divided goods into the Second, Third and Fourth Schedules and a residual category of "other goods" under Section 4(1)(b). The residual entry could not be used to displace specific scheduled entries, and declared goods continued to be governed by the statutory scheme referring to Section 14 and Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The later insertion of Section 4(1)(c) by amendment with effect from 1 April 2006, together with the Sixth Schedule, demonstrated that a special uniform rate for works contracts was introduced only from that date and was not merely declaratory of the earlier law.

Conclusion: For the period prior to 1 April 2006, the State could not treat Section 4(1)(b) as a catch-all uniform rate provision for works contracts; the appeal by the State failed and the assessees' position was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A residuary rate provision cannot be construed to create a uniform tax regime for works contracts where the statute, as then framed, applies specific scheduled rates and introduces a separate works-contract rate only by later amendment.

---