Tread rubber sold during tire retreading attracts higher tax rates as retreading process transforms goods identity

Kerala HC held that tread rubber sold during tire retreading works contracts attracted tax rates of 12.5% (2011-12) and 14.5% (2013-14). The court found that retreading processes including scraping, affixation, fusion, and vulcanization sufficiently altered the original identity and form of tread rubber strips, constituting transfer of goods in a different form rather than as tread rubber. The Appellate Tribunal's contrary decision was overturned, with the court ruling in favor of Revenue against the assessee based on the clarificatory order dated 7.4.2016.

---

---

Issues:
Rate of tax applicable on the sale of retread rubber used in a works contract under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14.

Analysis:
The High Court of Kerala considered two Revision Petitions concerning the rate of tax on the sale of retread rubber used in a works contract. The State challenged the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision, which favored the assessee's contention of a lower tax rate. The assessee engaged in retreading tires using tread rubber manufactured by them, incorporating it into old tires provided by customers. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument that the transfer of goods was in the form of goods, not in some other form, leading to a lower tax rate. However, the State argued that the goods lost their identity during the works contract process, justifying a higher tax rate.

The Court analyzed the nature of the transaction and the processes involved in retreading. It noted that the tread rubber strips lost their original identity when fused into the old tires during the works contract. The Court referred to clarificatory orders from the Department of Commercial Taxes, emphasizing that the transfer of retread rubber should be seen as a transfer of goods in the form of goods. The State highlighted that newer technologies did not change the applicability of the higher tax rate for the relevant assessment years, as per the 2016 order.

After considering the submissions, the Court held that the processes undertaken by the assessee altered the tread rubber strips' original identity, justifying the higher tax rate. The Court concluded that the transfer of goods in the works contract was not in the form of goods but in some other form, aligning with the 2016 clarificatory order. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, upholding the higher tax rates for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14. The O.T. Revisions were disposed of in favor of the Revenue, rejecting the assessee's arguments.

---