Structural glazing and fac ade works were treated as works contracts outside structural works classification under the Karnataka VAT Schedule.

Structural glazing and allied fac ade works were examined for classification under the Karnataka VAT Schedule, which distinguishes fabrication and erection of structural works from other works contracts. The High Court's earlier guidance was that structural glazing can fall within structural works only when it serves as a substitute for an external wall, while ACP or glass cladding used mainly for aesthetics does not. On remand, the Tribunal found that the contracts were composite works dominated by glazing, curtain walling, cladding, windows, ventilators and related fac ade work, with only a small part involving MS structure fabrication and erection. That factual classification was upheld as neither perverse nor contrary to the earlier directions, and the works remained classifiable under Entry 23.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's works relating to structural glazing, glass glazing, ACP cladding, curtain walling, and allied fabrication and erection activities fell under Entry 4 of the Sixth Schedule to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 or under Entry 23; and whether the Tribunal's finding on classification was perverse or contrary to the earlier directions and observations of the High Court.

Analysis: The relevant schedule distinguished between fabrication and erection of structural works under Entry 4 and all other works contracts not specified elsewhere under Entry 23. The prior decision of the High Court had already clarified that structural glazing or glass glazing could amount to structural works only when it constituted a substitute for an external wall, whereas ACP cladding and glass cladding serving merely an aesthetic function would not fall within Entry 4. On remand, the Tribunal examined the contracts and found that the petitioner had undertaken composite contracts in which the dominant work consisted of structural glazing, curtain walling, suspended glazing, spider glazing, ACP cladding, fixed glazing, aluminum and MS windows, ventilators, louvers, and related fac ade works, while fabrication and erection of MS structure formed only a small part of the total work. The Tribunal's conclusion was based on appreciation of the contractual scope and evidence, and no perversity or legal error was shown.

Conclusion: The works were correctly classified under Entry 23 of the Sixth Schedule, and the Tribunal's decision was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The revision was devoid of merit, and the tax classification adopted against the petitioner remained undisturbed.

---