INDIAN HUME PIPE CO LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS
LAWS(RAJ)-2015-2-327
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on February 13,2015

INDIAN HUME PIPE CO LTD Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Rajasthan And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) D .B. Civil Writ Petition No.4513/2004, relating to the proceedings of Assessment Years 1989 to 1994, arises out of the order passed by learned Single Judge, dated 24.04.2002, by which directions were issued to list the writ petition along with Special Appeals, arising out of the judgment dated 25.02.2002, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.724/2002 and six other connected writ petitions, as the issues raised in the writ petition were decided by judgment dated 25.02.2002, are common with the issues raised in said Special Appeals. The matter was earlier pending before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, and after its abolition, was transferred to this Court. D.B. Civil Special Appeal(W) Nos.177/2002, 179/2002, 174/2002, 175/2002, 176/2002, 178/2002 and 173/2002, arises out of the proceedings of Assessment Years 1990 -91, 1994 -95, 1995 -96, 1996 -97, 1997 -98, 1998 -99 and 1999 -2000, and are directed against the order dated 25.02.2002, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.724/2002 and six other connected writ petitions. D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos. 117/2002, 120/2002 and 118/2002, arising out of the proceedings of Assessment Years 1989 -90, 1990 -91 and 1991 -92, against the order dated 24.02.2002, passed in S.B. Review Petition Nos.14/2000, 10/2000 and 16/2000. D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos.6/2012 and 5/2012, arise out of the proceedings of Assessment Years 1992 -93 and 1993 -94, challenging the order dated 01.03.2012, in S.B. Civil Review Petition Nos.12/2000 and 13/2000, passed in the light of the order dated 24.02.2002 by a coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Review Petition Nos.14/2000, 10/2000 and 16/2000.
(2.) M /s Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. with its registered office at Construction House, Walchand and Hirachand Marg, Mumbai, is engaged in manufacturing and laying of pipelines for water supply schemes of various State Governments including the State of Rajasthan. It had also entered into contracts for execution of civil construction works including laying of pipelines for water supply.
(3.) THE Public Health and Engineering Department (for short, 'the PHED'), Government of Rajasthan, invited tenders for providing and laying of pipes complete with suitable jointing material specials, valves and construction of valve chamber, anchor blocks table crossing including testing and commissioning of pipelines. The petitioner -Company had, under the contracts, agreed to provide PSC pipes manufactured by it and had entered into the contracts with the PHED, Government of Rajasthan for providing and laying of pipelines. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4513/2004, the petitioner -Company has challenged the order dated 24.05.1997, passed by the Deputy Commissioner(Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Ajmer, dismissing all the six appeals for the Assessment Years 1989 -90, 1990 -91, 1991 -92, 1992 -93 and 1993 -94, upholding the orders passed by the Tax Assessing Authority, on the findings that the contract work executed by the appellant -Company, is a contract, which is divisible under work orders, annexed as Annexures A -2 and A -3, and on which imposition of tax and penalties was made under Section 7AA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act of 1954'), is in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority held that so far as the application for exemption by the assessee under Rule 10A is concerned, the Tax Assessing Authority had, by its order dated 26.09.1994, rejected the application in accordance with the provisions of the law, on the ground that the contract is a divisible contract, in which two types of work orders have been issued by the PHED. According to the Schedule Annexure A -1, the work of supply of pipes, and in Annexure A -2, the works for contract of civil work, are different contracts, in which the first part is concerned with the sale of pipes, on which tax has been imposed in accordance with the rates applicable to the pipes, and for which exemption certificate cannot be issued, as supply in such cases falls within the definition of 'sale'. The work performed by the appellant -Company was not an undivided work contract.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.