SREEDHARAN PALAKKAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions arise out of common order of the Tribunal in STA Nos.813 to 818 of 2003. The assessment year relates to 1995-96 to 2000-2001. The facts are extracted from STR 308/2004. The appellant is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST). He was a contractor under the Kerala Water Authority. According to him the works undertaken by him are civil works. He referred to serial Nos. 17 to 19 and 22 of the IVth schedule of KGST Act, 1963 and contended that the works undertaken by him will fall under the above items of work. Kerala Water Authority, the awarder is a registered dealer under the KGST Act. The materials for the work except boulders, jelly, laterite stone and sand were supplied by the Kerala Water Authority and as directed by Government, 2% from among the amount payable was deducted by the Awarder. The assessments were completed on the basis of the statements from the Awarder. S.T.Rev.Nos 308/2004, 309/2004, 310/2004, 311/2004, 312/2004 and 313 of 2004 The assessee claim the benefit of compounding under Section 7 (7) of the KGST Act. The Assessing Officer held that as per application submitted by the assessee in Form 21B he has sought permission to pay tax under section 7 (7A) of the Act. It was found to be in order and accordingly assessed him to pay tax at 5%. On further appeal, the first appellate authority namely, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner after verification of the true copies of the schedule of work undertaken by the assessee for all the above six years, the following were found to be in the nature of different works undertaken by him.

(2.) Though the assessee has also executed several other contracts during the year, it is also the same nature, some of which may come under the nature of civil works. But according to the first appellate authority the works undertaken by the assesee will not come under civil work as specified in sub section 7 of Section 7 and accordingly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. On further appeal to the Tribunal, it also agreed with the view expressed by the lower authority and dismissed the appeal. It is against the said order passed by the appellate tribunal that the present appeals are filed.

(3.) The point that arises for consideration is only as to whether the appellant is entitled to pay tax at the rate of 2% instead of 5% and whether the works undertaken by him is in the nature of civil work as specified under Section 7 (7A) of the KGST Act.