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.
The appellant being aggrieved by the determination made by the High Court of Gujarat on the issue companymon 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 its appeal, i.e. Special Civil Application No.
As the stand off centers around the rate of companyposition so fixed, essential it would be to set out the table of relevant entries to be immediately adverted to Sr.
12508/2002, against it, seeks redress against the judgment and order dated 4.09.2006 to that effect.
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 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 appellants works companytract for fabrication and installation of air conditioning plants falls under Entry 2 and, therefore, taxable at the rate of 15 and number under Entry 5 under which it is taxable at the rate of 5 of the Schedule to the numberification dated 18.10.93 issued under Section 55A of the Gujarat Sales Act, 1969?
By a companymunication 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 said revenue authority by its order dated 16.10.1996 however rejected the plea of the appellant and instead held that the works companytract was companyered by Entry No.2 as the assessee had to air condition the plant to be erected by it.
The margin of difference in the companyposition rates companypared to the rates of tax for the identical works companytract as catalogued in the Schedule to the Act did also weigh with the revenue authority in arriving at this companyclusion.
Description of works companytract Rate of Composition Works companytract for civil works like 2 companystruction of buildings, bridges or roads, and for repairs thereof Installation of air conditioners and 15 C.Coolers Furniture and fixtures, Partitions including 5 companytracts for interior decoration Fabrication and installation of lifts or 10 elevators or escalators Fabrication and installation of plant and 5 machinery Construction of bodies on chassis of motor 3 vehicles including three wheelers Ship building, including companystruction of 2 barges, ferries tugs, trawlers or dredgers Works companytracts other than those mentioned 12 above The recorded facts demonstrate that the appellant being under the impression qua the works companytract ordered vide letter dated 22.10.1983 of M s. Anupam Colour and Chemicals that it would attract the rate of companyposition prescribed against Entry No.5 hereinabove i.e. fabrication and installation of plant and machinery and number 15 against Entry No.2 i.e. installation of air conditioners and AC companylers or 12 against Entry No.8 i.e. works companytracts other than those mentioned, filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Legal , Gujarat under Section 62 of the Act and insisted that the works companytract involved came within the purview of Entry No.5 attracting the companyposition rate of tax at 5 only.
16/1996.
The provisions of sections 13,51 and 55 shall number apply to a dealer who opts for companyposition of tax under sub section 1 .
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
In companyrse of the regular assessment for the Assessment Year 1993 94, the companycerned 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 companyposite rate of 15 for the works companytract involved.
Pursuant to this provision, and as empowered thereby, the Government of Gujarat vide the numberification dated 18.10.1993 for short hereinafter referred to as the Notification did fix the rate of companyposition payable by such dealer s in lieu of the amount of tax otherwise leviable under the Act and as companytemplated in the said statutory provision.
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.
AMITAVA ROY,J. 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 companyspectus.
