Works contract taxation turns on incorporation value, with fabricated steel superstructures treated as distinct goods and labour-only deductions excluded.

In a works contract, the taxable value is the goods incorporated into the work, with labour and service elements excluded. Applying the transformation and marketability tests, the Patna HC article notes that fabricated steel girders used in a bridge superstructure were treated as a distinct commercial commodity rather than continuing declared goods, so the higher tax rate was sustained. It also explains that deductions for fabrication, transportation, erection and sub-contractor charges were disallowed to the extent they formed part of the value of the transferred goods, while pure labour-only elements remained deductible. The reassessment was upheld as within jurisdiction because escaped turnover, incorrect deductions and rate application were recorded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether steel superstructure/triangulated steel girders fabricated and erected under the works contract remained declared goods as iron and steel under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and could be taxed only at the restricted rate; (ii) Whether the amounts claimed as deductions towards fabrication, transportation, erection and sub-contractor charges were rightly disallowed while making reassessment under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Issue (i): Whether steel superstructure/triangulated steel girders fabricated and erected under the works contract remained declared goods as iron and steel under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and could be taxed only at the restricted rate.

Analysis: The taxable event in a works contract is the transfer of property in goods involved in execution of the contract, and such transfer occurs on incorporation of the goods in the works. The Court applied the principle that the value taxable is the value of the goods at the time of incorporation, while charges relatable to labour and services must be excluded. On the facts, the structural steel was fabricated into a different commercial commodity, namely the bridge superstructure/triangulated girder, and the Court held that the process satisfied the transformation and marketability tests. The item transferred was not treated as continuing to retain the character of declared goods under the cited provisions.

Conclusion: The classification adopted by the assessing authority was upheld and the levy at the higher rate was sustained against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the amounts claimed as deductions towards fabrication, transportation, erection and sub-contractor charges were rightly disallowed while making reassessment under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis: The Court held that deductions which relate to labour and services are deductible, but the expenditure incurred in converting structural steel into the erected steel superstructure, including transportation, launching and installation, formed part of the value of the goods transferred in the works contract. The reassessment notice and order were also held to be within jurisdiction, as the prescribed authority recorded reasons touching escaped turnover, wrong deduction claims and incorrect rate application. The plea based on earlier assessments and alternative remedy did not persuade the Court to interfere.

Conclusion: The disallowance of the claimed deductions and the reassessment order were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ applications failed, and the assessment and demand raised by the revenue authorities were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In a works contract, goods lose their original identity and become taxable at the stage of incorporation if fabrication and erection bring into existence a distinct commercial commodity; labour-only deductions remain excluded, but expenses forming part of the value of the transferred goods are includible for tax purposes.

---