PEST CONTROL INDIA LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ application was filed by the petitioner-company praying for a declaration that the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982 is ultra vires the Constitution of India as also the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 in so far as it seeks to impose sales tax on the works contracts. It was further prayed that this Court may declare that the provisions with regard to imposition of sales tax on the works contract were not applicable to the nature of the services rendered by the petitioner-company, namely, pest control, household disinfection, anti-termite treatment, etc. It accordingly sought quashing of the order dated 9th December, 1988 (annexure 5) by which respondent No. 4, the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur, held that the provisions of works contract were applicable to the petitioner-company as well in regard to the services rendered by it nnder agreement with the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Consequently, it sought quashing of the notices dated 22nd December, 1988 and 23rd January, 1989 (annexures 6 and 7) requiring the petitioner to produce its books of accounts for the purpose of hearing under sections 13 (5) (ii), 17, 18 (i) and 22 (3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981.

(2.) AT the hearing of this writ application, Dr. Debi Pal, appearing for the petitioner, did not challenge the vires of the Constitution (Forty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1982 and the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 in so far as it seeks to impose sales tax on works contract. He, however, submitted that having regard to the nature of services rendered by the petitioner-company, there being no sale of goods, the provisions relating to works contract did not apply and the petitioner-company was not liable to pay any sales tax having regard to the nature of services rendered.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that despite these facts, it received a notice under section 33 (a) of the Bihar Finance Act from the office of respondent No. 4 asking it to appear and to explain why it had not filed returns under the provisions of the Act relating to works contract. The petitioner's representative appeared before respondent No. 4 and explained that the petitioner was engaged in the business of rendering services of pest control and was charging their clients only for services rendered. Since no goods were supplied in any form and its activities were confined to rendering services only, there was no question of payment of sales tax for rendering such services as no sale of goods was involved.