1. Both the learned counsel at bar submit that the controversy raised in the present revision petition filed by the Revenue under Section 65 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Narasamma Vs. The Deputy Commssioner, Commercial Taxes, Karnataka and Another, 2016 (86) Kar. L.J.229(SC), to the effect that the “Iron and Steel” purchased by the respondent – assessee and used in the execution of the civil works contracts of the construction of the buildings, remains “Iron and Steel” as declared goods under the provisions of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and therefore are taxable only at the concessional rate of 4% and not at 13% rate of tax.
2. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order dated 27.02.2015 held in favour of the respondent-assessee as under:
“9. In view of the above ruling, it is held that the iron and steel which are used in casting, beams, pillars, slabs and roofs are liable for tax at 4% only i. e., iron and steel transferred in the same form in the execution of works contract. However, the iron and steel which are used in fabrication of items in the form of grills, gates, doors and windows are taxable at higher rate as the same are transferred in the different form. The quantum of iron and steel used in the same form and different form are not available on the lower authorities records. The same requires to be segregated. If there is no element of fabrication of iron and steel involved in the execution of works contract by the appellant as per the books of accounts, invoices and the audited annual financial statements then the question of segregation does not arise at all. This has to be examined at the level of AA only and therefore, the matter need to be remitted back to the AA for limited purpose to examine whether the entire iron and steel used in the execution of civil works contract is for casting of pillars, beams, RCC roofs, slabs etc i.e., transfer of iron and steel in the same form or used also in the fabrication of finished goods used in the works contract i.e., the transfer or iron and steel in the different form. Apart from this, the AA shall also adhere to Rule 3 of KVAT Rules in order to compute total and taxable turnover.”
3. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue had preferred this Revision Petition before this court.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Narasamma (supra), following its earlier decisions in the case of Builders Association of Indian and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR /989 SC /37/ and MIs. Gannon Dunkerley and Company and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (/993)88 STC 204 (SC), held as under:
“The Appellate Tribunal had passed an order dated 11.01.2002 in which it decided the case against the assessee on the ground that since the iron and steel products went into cement concrete, they changed form, and since they changed form, they were no longer declared goods and could be taxed without the constraints mentioned in Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act. A sales tax revision petition filed before the High Court yielded an order dated /4.06.2007 by which the assessee was sent back to the Appellate Tribunal for rectification. This rectification petition was dismissed by an order dated 30.11.2005. A sales tax revision petition was thereafter filed against both orders, namely, 11.01.2002 and 30.11.2005. The High Court, in the impugned judgement dated 01.09.2006 , unfortunately adverted only to the rectification order dated 30.11.2005 and not to the original order 11.01.2002 and 30.11.2005. The High Court, in the impugned judgement dated 01.09.2006, unfortunately adverted only to the rectification order dated 30.11.2005 and not to the original order of 11.01.2002 and thus dismissed the revision petition stating that no question of law arose. Ordinarily, we would have set aside the judgement and remanded the matter back to the High Court to determine the matter on merits, but at this point of time this would not serve any purpose. Instead, it is enough to set aside both the judgements impugned by the assessees, dated 01.09.2006 and 12.08.2004, in light of the law laid down in Builders’ Association and M/s. Gannon Dunkerley (supra), and declare that the declared goods in question can only be taxed at the rate of 4%.
5. Since the controversy now stands covered by the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and is no longer res integra, we are satisfied that no question of law arises in the present revision petition filed by the Revenue requiring our further consideration.
6. Accordingly, revision petition filed by the State is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. No costs.