SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Raj) 370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
J.K. RANKA, J.
Commercial Taxes Officer – Petitioner
Vs.
Penar Industries Ltd. – Respondent
SB Sales Tax Revision Petition No.6/2007
Decided On : 22/05/2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Archit Bohra, counsel for the petitioner
Mr. Anant Kasliwal, counsel for the respondent

The expression "relating to" has a wide meaning and includes everything relating to road.

Headnote:

SALES TAX - EXEMPTION - WORKS CONTRACT - FIXING OF PROFILE-SAFETY STEEL BANKER AT HAZARDOUS LOCATION ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO.8 - WHETHER RELATED TO ROADS - YES

Fact of the Case:

The assessee was awarded a contract for fixing of Works-Profile Safety Barrier at Toll Plaza, NH-8. The Assistant Commissioner granted a certificate of exemption for the work at a fee of 1% with 12% surcharge. The Assessing Officer later withdrew the exemption on the ground that the work was not covered by the exemption notification. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tax Board upheld the exemption.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the fixing of profile-safety steel banker at hazardous location on National Highway No.8 was related to roads and therefore, the exemption granted was valid.

Issues: 1. Whether providing and fixing profile-safety steel banker at hazardous location on National Highway No.8 is/was related to the roads or not?

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of "road" in Chambers' Dictionary and held that the fixing of profile-safety steel banker was part of the road. The court also held that the expression "relating to" has a wide meaning and includes everything relating to road.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the Revenue.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant sales tax revision petition arises out of the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board (for short, 'Tax Board') dt.15/11/2003 passed in Appeal No.119/2003 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner-Revenue assailing the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) (for short, DC(A)') has been dismissed.

2. Instant petition was admitted vide order dt.30/04/2015 on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, providing and fixing profile-safety steel banker at hazardous location on National Highway No.8 is/was related to the roads or not ?

2.In the notification the intention of the notification was clear that the exemptions will be granted to “execution of works contract relating to buildings, bridges, dams, roads and canals”, whether fixing profile-safety steel banker at hazardous location on National Highway No.8 is/was execution of works contract relating to buildings, bridges, dams, roads and canals ?

3.When metal crash barrier and access control fencing can be fixed other than the roads, in these circumstances providing and fixing profile-safety steel banker and metal crash barrier and access control fencing at hazardous location on National Highway No.8 is/was related to the execution of work relating to roads or not ?

4.Whether in view of Rule 14 of the Sales Tax Rules, the exemption once granted can be withdrawn only on the premise that the same was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, and not on the ground that the work in question was not covered by exemption so granted ?”

3. The brief controversy is that a contract was awarded to the respondent-M/s Penar Industries Ltd. (assessee) by the Rajasthan State Bridge Construction Corporation Ltd., Jaipur (for short, 'RSBCCL') for fixing of Works-Profile Safety Barrier at Toll Plaza, NH-8. On an application moved by the RSBCCL and the respondent-assessee jointly, the Assistant Commissioner, Works Contract & Leasing Tax, Division-I, Jaipur vide order dt.09/08/1999 granted certificate of exemption in Form ST-2 bearing No.6/05 directing that fixing of Works Profile Safety Barrier at Toll Plaza, NH-8 would entail exemption fee @ 1% with 12% surcharge and the same was required to be paid by the assessee.

4. The Assessing Officer (for short, 'AO') vide order dt. 27/11/2001 came to the conclusion that certificate of exemption though was related to every part of Roads but fixing and providing of Works Profile Safety Barrier could not be said to be relating to roads but these were safety steel barriers and could be used for the other purposes, other than road, therefore, withdrew the benefit available to the respondentassessee granted vide Certificate of Exemption No.6/45.

5. On an appeal filed by the respondent-assessee, the DC (A) agreed with the contention of the respondent-assessee and allowed its claim by holding that it is certainly used in the Roads and as such, allowed the appeal.

6. On an appeal filed by the petitioner-Revenue, the Tax Board also came to the conclusion that it relates to use in construction of road and safety measures, therefore, the exemption fee of 1% as was stated in the certificate granted on 09/08/1999 @ 1% and 12% surcharge was held to be just and proper.

7. Mr. Archit Bohra, appearing on behalf of Mr. RB Mathur, counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessee travelled beyond the works contract granted to it, therefore, the AO was justified in holding that the safety steel barriers were not fixed in accordance with the exemption notification and has rightly come to the conclusion that once it did not act in accordance with the exemption notification, then all benefits arising out of it were certainly lost. He further relied on Rule 14 of the RST Act that if the exemption certificate has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, then the exemption can be denied and this is what the assessee did and it was rightly denied by the AO and accordingly contended that the order of the Tax Boar











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top