Page 1

1

               (REPORTABLE)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2957 of 2007

Voltas Ltd.                   ….Appellant

Vs. State of Gujarat     …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T AMITAVA ROY,J. 1. The  oft  encountered  debate  on  the  extent  of  tax  

liability based on the classification of the determinants of  

a  levy  in  law  seeks  judicial  scrutiny  in  the  attendant  

factual  conspectus.   The appellant  being aggrieved by  

the determination made by the High Court of Gujarat on  

the issue common to a reference under Section 69 of the  

Sales Tax Act, 1969 (for short hereinafter referred as to  

as the “Act”) being Sales Tax Reference No.1/2004 and

Page 2

2

its appeal, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 12508/2002,  

against it, seeks redress against the judgment and order  

dated 4.09.2006 to that effect.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The  indispensable  skeletal  facts  introduce  the  

appellant,  M/s.  Voltas  Ltd.  as  a  company incorporated  

under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged amongst others  

in the business of execution of jobs design, supply and  

installation  of  air-conditioning  plants  construed  to  be  

indivisible  works  contracts.   It  is  a  registered  dealer  

under the Act. By a communication dated 22.10.1993 of  

M/s. Anupam Colours and Chemicals Industries, Bombay,  

an order was placed with it for water chilling plant at its  

factory  at  Vapi.   The  basic  design   parameters  were  

enumerated in the work order as hereunder:

“1.Tonnage of Refrigeration ..      11 TR

Page 3

3

2. Final temperature or chilled ..       5 to 6°C water to be made available  for our process.

3.Quantity of chilled water ..   12,000           liters(  5  to  6°  C)  required  for  our  liters” process in about 10 hours.

Other specifications pertaining to the water chilling plant  

were  advised  to  be  in  conformity  with  the  assessee’s  

offer, as referred to therein.  The work order insisted on  

the requirement of chilled water to be used directly for its  

process  of  manufacturing  pigments  with  the  assertion  

that sufficient precautions be taken to ensure that chilled  

water at 5 to 6 degree centigrade is available for such  

process. The letter emphasized as well that the assessee  

would  provide  the  customer  with  the  lay-out  details,  

foundation  drawing  and  other  necessary  information  

required  for  the  erection  of  the  plant.   The  essential  

segments of the works contracts involved, as would be

Page 4

4

eventually  relevant  for  the  adjudicative  exercise  

underway, were thus specified with distinct details in the  

work order.

4. The  Act  which  is  a  legislation  to  consolidate  and  

amend the law relating to the levy of tax on the sale or  

purchase of goods in the State of Gujarat has set out in  

Part-A of Schedule II-A thereof, the rates of the impost on  

the sale of goods involved in the execution of the works  

contracts,  the  relevant  excerpt  whereof  is  quoted  as  

under:

Sr.No. Description  of  works  contract

Entry  No.  in  Schedule- IIA  of  the  Act

Regular  rate  of tax

 1. Installation  of  air- conditioners  and  A.C.coolers  and  for  repairs thereof.

      67      18%

 2. Furniture  and  fixtures  partitions  including  contracts  for  interior  decoration and repairs  

      104       8%

Page 5

5

thereof    3.  Fabrication  and  

installation  of  lifts  or  elevators or escalators  and for repairs thereof

       120        8%

4. Fabrication  and  installation  of  plant  and  machinery  and  repairs thereof

       39        8%

 5. Construction  of  bodies  on  chassis  of  Motor  Vehicles  including  three wheelers and for  repairs thereof  

    128(5)        4%

 6. Ship building including  construction of barges,  Ferries  Tugs  Trawlers  or  Dredgers  and  for  repairs thereof

     186        4%

5.  Section  55-A  of  the  Act  dwells  on  the  scheme  of  

composition of tax whereunder a dealer as referred to  

therein  and  in  the  circumstances  and  subject  to  such  

conditions as may be prescribed, is left with the option to  

pay in lieu of the amount of tax leviable from him under  

Section 7 or 8 in respect of any period, a lump sum by  

way of composition at the rate/rates, as may be fixed by

Page 6

6

the  State  Government  by  notification  in  the  Official  

Gazette,  having regard to  the incidence of  tax on the  

nature of  the goods involved in  the execution of  total  

value of the works contract.  Apt it would be to quote  

Section 55A as well for ready reference:

“SECTION 55A.  COMPOSITION OF TAX. (1) The  Commissioner  may,  in  such  

circumstances  and  subject  to  such  conditions  as  may  be  prescribed,  permit every dealer referred to in sub- clause (f) of clause (10) of section 2 to  pay at his option in lieu of the amount  of  tax  (including  additional  tax)  leviable from him under section 7,(or  8)  in  respect  of  any  period,  a  lump  sum by way of composition at the rate  or rates as may be fixed by the State  Government  by  Notification  in  the  Official  Gazette having regard to the  incidence of tax on the nature of the  goods  involved  in  the  execution  of  total value of the works contract.

(2) The  provisions  of  sections  [13,51  and  55]  shall  not  apply  to  a  dealer  who opts for composition of tax under  sub-section (1).]”

Page 7

7

Pursuant to this provision, and as empowered thereby,  

the  Government  of  Gujarat  vide  the  notification  dated  

18.10.1993  (for  short  hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  

Notification) did fix the rate of composition payable by  

such dealer  (s)  in  lieu of  the amount of tax otherwise  

leviable under the Act and as contemplated in the said  

statutory provision.  As the stand-off centers around  the  

rate of composition so fixed, essential it would be to set  

out  the  table  of  relevant  entries  to  be  immediately  

adverted to:

Sr.No. Description of works contract Rate  of  Composition

1. Works contract for civil works like  construction  of  buildings,  bridges  or roads, and for repairs thereof  

      2%

2. Installation of air-conditioners and  A.C.Coolers  

      15%

3. Furniture  and  fixtures,  Partitions  including  contracts  for  interior  decoration

       5%

4. Fabrication and installation of lifts  or elevators or escalators  

      10%

Page 8

8

5. Fabrication  and  installation  of  plant and machinery

        5%

6. Construction of bodies on chassis  of  motor  vehicles  including  three  wheelers

        3%   

7. Ship  building,  including  construction  of  barges,  ferries  tugs, trawlers or dredgers

2%

8. Works contracts other than those  mentioned above

        12%

6.  The  recorded  facts  demonstrate  that  the  appellant  

being  under  the  impression  qua  the  works  contract  

ordered  vide  letter  dated  22.10.1983  of  M/s.  Anupam  

Colour and Chemicals  that  it  would attract  the rate of  

composition prescribed against Entry No.5 hereinabove  

i.e.  fabrication and installation  of  plant  and machinery  

and not 15% against  Entry No.2 i.e.  installation of  air-

conditioners and AC coolers or 12% against Entry No.8  

i.e. works contracts other than those mentioned,  filed an  

application before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax

Page 9

9

(Legal), Gujarat under Section 62 of the Act and insisted  

that the works contract involved came within the purview  

of Entry No.5 attracting the composition rate of tax at 5%  

only.  The  said  revenue  authority  by  its  order  dated  

16.10.1996 however rejected the plea of the appellant  

and instead held that the works contract was covered by  

Entry No.2 as the assessee had to air-condition the plant  

to  be  erected  by  it.   The  margin  of  difference  in  the  

composition rates compared to the rates of tax for the  

identical works contract as catalogued in the Schedule to  

the  Act  did  also  weigh  with  the  revenue  authority  in  

arriving at this conclusion.   

7. The appellant-assessee being dissatisfied did appeal  

against  this  finding  before  the  Gujarat  Sales  Tax  

Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short hereinafter referred to as  

the  “Tribunal”)  which  was  registered  as  Appeal  No.  

16/1996.   In  course of  the regular  assessment  for  the

Page 10

10

Assessment  Year  1993-94,  the  concerned  Sales  Tax  

Officer, pursuant to the decision rendered by the Deputy  

Commissioner of Sales Tax on 16.10.1996, assessed the  

appellant by applying the composite rate of 15% for the  

works contract involved.   

8. The appellant thus preferred an appeal against this  

assessment order before the Assistant Commissioner of  

Sales  Tax,  Ahmedabad  and  having  failed  before  this  

forum did take the issue before the Tribunal in Second  

Appeal  No.97/2001.   These  two  appeals  were  also  

dismissed by the Tribunal  vide its  judgment and order  

dated  2.12.2002  whereafter  the  appellant  invoked  the  

writ  jurisdiction  of  Gujarat  High  Court  registered  as  

Special  Civil  Application  No.  12508/2002  which  to  

reiterate, have been, by the impugned decision, disposed  

of along with Sales Tax Reference No.1/2004 laid by the

Page 11

11

Tribunal before it under Section 69 of the Act referring  

the following question of law:  

“Whether  on  the  facts  and  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  the  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?”  

9. The High Court has answered the question referred in  

the affirmative thus sustaining the determination made  

by the revenue authorities/fora and the learned Tribunal  

declaring  that  the  appellant’s  works  contract  for  

fabrication  and for  installation  of  air-conditioning plant  

did fall under Entry 2 of the Notification and was taxable  

at the composition rate of 15%.

Page 12

12

10.  As  the  decision  of  the  High  Court  assailed  herein  

would disclose, in its view, the air-conditioning systems  

are  classified  according  to  their  construction  and  

operating characteristics and that it would be incorrect to  

differentiate  between a  central  air-conditioning  system  

and  a  room  air-conditioner  on  the  basis  that  the  

installation of air-conditioning plant requires preparation  

of plant whereas no such exercise is to be undertaken in  

case of installation of window air-conditioner etc.  This is  

more  so  as  the  basic  components  applied  in  the  

manufacture  of  a  air-conditioning  plant,  room  air-

conditioner or split air-conditioner are almost similar with  

difference in size and are not drastically different.  The  

appellant’s plea that in central air-conditioning system,  

fabrication has to be undertaken requiring preparation of  

plant  etc.  and  that  thus  the  central  air-conditioning  

system has  to  be treated differently  from a room air-

Page 13

13

conditioner  or  window  air-conditioner  etc.  was  not  

accepted because, according to the High Court, even in a  

room air-conditioner  or  window  air-conditioner  or  split  

air-conditioner or AC cooler, elevation and lay out of the  

area  requiring  conditioning,   has  to  be  taken  into  

consideration.  The  appellant’s  contention  that  Entry  5  

dealt with all kinds of fabrication and installation of all  

kinds  of  plant  and  machinery  and  that  there  was  no  

reason  to  exclude  the  installation  of  air-conditioning  

plant therefrom was negatived.  The High Court was of  

the  view  that  the  composition  scheme  ought  to  be  

regarded as an exemption reprieve and thus needed to  

be  construed  strictly.   Reliance  was  placed  on  the  

decision  of  this   Court  in  Sanden Vikas  (India)  Ltd.  V.   

Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi (2003) 4 SCC 699  

which  held  with  reference  to  a  particular  entry  in  an  

exemption  notification  under  the  Central  Excise  Tariff

Page 14

14

Act,  1985 that  the  air-conditioner  kit  of  a  car  did  fall  

within  the  meaning  of  air-conditioners.  It  rejected  the  

proposition  that  in  common  parlance  air-conditioner,  

room air-conditioner, window air-conditioner, A.C. cooler,  

air-conditioning  plant  etc.  were  differently  known  and  

thus installation of air-conditioning plant would fall within  

Entry No.5.

11.   Mr.  Datar,  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

appellant has assertively urged that having regard to the  

inalienable  and    essential  constituents  of  the  works  

contract as per the work order, fabrication as well as the  

installation  of  the  water  chilling  plant  were  distinctly  

different  items  of  works  and  thus  the  appellant  was  

taxable at the composition rate of 5% against Entry No.5  

of  the Notification.   Referring to the work order dated  

22.10.1993 in particular, the learned senior counsel has  

maintained that the water chilling plant of the customer

Page 15

15

was  to  be  configured  in  conformity  with  the  design  

parameters  referred to  therein  and not  on readymade  

specifications  on  the  election  or  discretion  of  the  

appellant-assessee.  According to Mr. Datar the design  

parameters prescribed by the customer, to cater to its  

requirement amongst others of the temperature of the  

chilled water and the volume thereof to be used for its  

process of manufacturing pigment did assuredly involve  

design and fabrication of the essential composition of the  

system which by no means could be equated with the  

installation thereof simplicitor as the end device.  That  

the  customer  was  persistently  particular  on  the  

adherence  to  its  prescribed  design  parameters  as  is  

apparent  from the  work  order,  demonstrates  that  the  

works  contract,  in  any  view of  the  matter,  cannot  be  

drawn within the contours of Entry 2 of the Notification,  

he urged.

Page 16

16

12.    As  against  this,  Ms.  Madhvi  Diwan,  the  learned  

counsel for the Revenue has argued that as the supply of  

the  water  chilling  plant  as  per  the  works  contract  

involved for all practicable purposes does not envisage  

any process of fabrication, the appellant is liable to be  

taxed at the composition rate of 15%.  According to her,  

the  basic   and   functional  components  of  the  water  

chilling plant being identical to that of an air-conditioning  

plant, the appellant’s plea of application of 5% composite  

rate prescribed against Entry No.5 of the Notification is  

wholly  misplaced  and  thus  no  interference  with  the  

impugned judgment and order is called for.  Reliance was  

placed  on  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Sanden  Vikas  

(India) supra.

13.  The  rival  assertions  have  received  our  due  

consideration.  The competing entries requiring scrutiny  

to ascertain the correct composition rate of tax payable

Page 17

17

vis-à-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

Page 18

18

rate  of  tax  is  in  lieu  of  the  amount  of  levy  otherwise  

payable  by the dealer  under  the Act.   The scheme of  

composition  as  envisaged by Section  55A therefore  in  

our  comprehension  does  not  admit  of  any synonymity  

with that of exemption as contemplated in law.  This pre-

supposition of the High Court as one of the contributing  

factors in concluding that the works contract in question  

did  fall  within  the  framework  of  Entry  No.2  of  the  

Notification is apparently erroneous.

14.  As adverted to hereinabove, the 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

Page 19

19

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.  

Page 20

20

15. The legislative intendment entrenched in Section 55A  

of the Act to maintain a direct correlation between the  

composition rates of tax as the Notification would reveal  

and the description of the corresponding works contract  

is patent. Understandably, the word “fabrication” had not  

been applied in the works contract for installation of air-

conditioners and A.C. coolers contained in Entry No.2 of  

the  Notification.  The  author  of  the  said  Notification,  

however,  did  consciously  include  the  expression  

“fabrication”  while  describing  the  works  contract  

enumerated  in  Entry  5 thereof.   Having regard to  the  

inseparable interdependence between the description of  

a works contract and the corresponding composition rate  

of tax, none of the inherent components of the works to  

be  executed  can  either  be  ignored  or  disregarded  for  

identifying the correct composition rate of the levy under  

the Act. Any other approach could tantamount to doing

Page 21

21

violence not only to the legislative purpose conveyed by  

Section 55A but also the language of  its  yield  i.e.  the  

Notification  seeking  to  promote  the  statutory  end.  

Viewed in that context, mere omission of the expressions  

“air-conditioners” and “A.C. coolers” in Entry No.5 would  

not be of any definitive consequence.  The words plant  

and  machinery  applied  in  Entry  5  are  otherwise  

compendious enough to include air-conditioners and A.C.  

coolers, if the works contract involved require fabrication  

as well as installation thereof.

16.    The word “fabrication” as defined in the Aiyan’s  

Advanced  Law  Lexicon  (Vol.II),  3rd Edition  2005  is  “to  

manufacture”.

17.    The  Oxford  Dictionary  defines  the  word  

“fabrication”  to  mean  to  construct  or  manufacture  an  

industrial product.

Page 22

22

18.   The  word  “manufacture”  as  per  the  Aiyan’s  

Advanced Law Lexicon (Vol.II)  in  its  plainest  form and  

shorn of other details is the process of transforming or  

fashioning of raw materials into a change of form for use.  

The process of fabrication therefore conceptually would  

involve a lay out for the ultimate device to be installed,  

preceded  by  a  design  of  the  parameters  prescribed,  

configuration  of  the  resultant  components,  and  

integration thereof to structure the ultimate mechanism  

or product.  Installation thereof  would be a subsequent  

step to finally position the plant to complete the works  

contract. As fabrication in terms of the work order in the  

instant  case  is  a  distinctly  independent  yet  integral  

segment of the works contract contributing to the final  

physical  form  of  the  water  chilling  plant  with  the  

characteristics  intended,  it  cannot  be construed to be,  

synonymous to the installation thereof.

Page 23

23

19.   The High Court,  as the impugned judgment would  

exhibit, had confined itself wholly to the components of  

various air-conditioning devices available and the range  

of the use thereof and in our estimate had missed the  

significant aspect of “fabrication” integrally involved in  

the works contract to supply the water chilling plant with  

the design parameters stipulated by the customer.  The  

High Court did adopt a general approach vis-a-vis the air-

conditioning devices commercially available in different  

forms dehors  the  singular  factual  aspects  of  the  work  

order constituting the works contract.  The High Court,  

thus,  in  our  view,  by  overlooking  the  component  of  

fabrication in the works contract opined that the same  

was within the purview of Entry No.2 and not Entry No.5.  

The description of the works contract, to reiterate, being  

of  determinative  bearing  for  ascertaining  the  

composition rate of tax, we are of the unhesitant opinion,

Page 24

24

in the face of the design parameters insisted upon in the  

work  order  and  consequential  process  of  fabrication  

involved  to  cater  thereto,  that  the  works  contract  

involved squarely falls within the ambit of Entry No.5 of  

the Notification.  The margin of difference in rates of tax  

as prescribed by the Act compared to those mentioned in  

the  Notification  ipso  facto  does  not  detract  from  this  

conclusion. This consideration per se cannot override the  

decisive characteristics of the works contract otherwise  

unequivocally spelt out by the work order.     

20.   The  primary  canon  of  interpretation  of  a  taxing  

statute  hallowed  by  time  is  underlined  by  the  classic  

statement  of  ROWLATT,J.  in  Cape Brandy Syndicate v.  

Inland  Revenue  Commnrs.  (1921)  1  KB 64  at  p.71 as  

extracted hereunder:

“In a Taxing Act one has to look merely  at what is clearly said. There is no room  for any intendment. There is no equity

Page 25

25

about a tax. There is no presumption as  to  a  tax.  Nothing  is  to  be  read  in,  nothing is to be implied. One can only  look fairly at the language used.”

It is trite as well that in a case of reasonable doubt, the  

construction  most  beneficial  to  the  subject  is  to  be  

adopted.  The underlying principle is that the meaning  

and intention  of  a  statute must  be collected from the  

plain and unambiguous expression used therein  rather  

than from any notion that may be entertained by a Court  

which may appear to be it just and expedient. Even prior  

in  point  of  time,  TINDAL,  CJ  in  Sussex  Peerage  case  

(1844) 11 C1 & Fin 85 : 8 ER 1034(HL) had propounded  

thus:

“If the words of the statute are in  themselves precise and unambiguous,  then no more can be necessary than  to  expound  those  words  in  their  natural and ordinary sense. The words  themselves  do  alone  in  such  cases  best  declare  the  intent  of  the  law- giver.”

Page 26

26

These views have with time resonated in various judicial  

pronouncements  with  unambiguous  approval  of  this  

Court  as  well  amongst  others  in  Income  Tax  Officer,   

Tuticorin  vs.  T.S.Devinatha Nadar  & Ors.  (1968)68 ITR  

252 and very recently in Commissioner of Income Tax-III   

vs. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana (2014) 6 SCC 444 and   

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I,  New Delhi  vs.   

Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (1) SCC 1.  A plethora of  

decisions in this regard, available though, we do not wish  

to burden the instant narration therewith.

21.  Qua the issue of classification of goods to determine  

the chargeability thereof and the rates of levy applicable,  

it is no longer res-integra that the burden of proof is on  

the  taxing  authority  to  demonstrate  that  a  particular  

class  of  goods  or  item  in  question  is  taxable  in  the  

manner claimed by them and that mere assertion in that

Page 27

27

regard  is  of  no  avail  as  has  been  enunciated  by  this  

Court  in  U.O.I.  &  Ors.  vs.  Garware  Nylones  Ltd.etc.   

(1996) 10 SCC 413  and relied upon with approval in HPL  

Chemicals  Ltd.  vs.  Commissioner  of  Central  Excise,   

Chandigarh (2006) 5 SCC 208.

22.  Equally,  fundamental  is  the  principle  of  statutory  

interpretation that no construction to a legislation ought  

to  be  provided  so  as  to  render  a  part  of  it  otiose  or  

redundant as held inter alia by this Court in Maharashtra  

University  of  Health  Sciences  &  Ors.  vs.  Satchikitsa   

Prasarak Mandal & Ors. (2010)3 SCC 786.

23.  That it is the cardinal principle of interpretation not  

to  brush  aside  a  word  used  in  a  statute  or  in  a  

Notification  issued under  a  statute and that  full  effect  

must be given to the every word of an instrument  had  

been  underscored  by  this  Court  in  The  South  Central  

Railway  Employees  Co-operative  Credit  Society  

Page 28

28

Employees Union, Secundrabad vs. The Registrar of Co-

operative Societies & Ors. reported in (1998) 2 SCC 580.  

The  Notification  in  the  instant  case  being  apparently  

statutory in nature is akin to subordinate legislation to  

actualize and advance the legislative intent engrafted in  

Section 55A.  It not only owes its existence to the Act but  

would  also  be  amenable  to  the  cardinal  principles  of  

interpretation adverted to herein above.

24.   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

Page 29

29

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.

25.  The decision of this Court in Sanden Vikas (India)  

Ltd.(supra)  is  of  no  avail  to  the  revenue  vis-à-vis  the  

issue falling for scrutiny herein.

26. In the face of the determinations made herein above,  

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  dated  

4.9.2006 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in

Page 30

30

Sales Tax Reference No.1/2004 and Special Civil Appeal  

No.12508/2002 and other determinations as are contrary  

to the views expressed herein are hereby set aside.

27.  The Civil Appeal is allowed.

…………………….CJ.

……………………….J.         (Arun Mishra)

……………………….J.        (Amitava Roy)

New Delhi, Dated:  April 8, 2015