Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2016 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 1094 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxClassification - Rate of tax on paving bricks/blocks - 4% or 12.5% - distinction between bricks and paving bricks/ blocks - the first appellant issued show cause notices proposing to levy VAT at 12.5% on paving bricks/blocks treating them as falling outside entry No.2 of Schedule III. - KVAT - Revenue submitted that, Entry No.2 of Schedule III is clear in its language to include bricks and only bricks stipulated therein which are used for construction of a building and it cannot include paving bricks since the normal use of paving bricks is mainly for flooring in the compound, garden etc, and not for construction of a building Held that:- It can hardly be disputed that the meaning of the word ‘bricks’ is known to public at large who are consumers of varieties of bricks for various purposes. But, the general use and the general meaning the expression brick is one used for construction purposes. One who is involved in the business of construction or who is desirous to put up construction would use of the bricks for the purpose of construction of a building. Therefore, the common meaning of bricks is that which could be used for construction purposes with the help of cement and sand for outer finishing and also for aligning of bricks. If one thinks, of bricks, at the first instance, country made bricks made out of clay would come within such category but the Legislature intended to include refractory bricks, fly ash bricks in addition to country made bricks. Therefore, it has also used the words “all kinds of bricks”. It is true that the language used is to include all kinds of bricks and therefore, one may say that the bricks made out of any preparation, other than fly ash bricks or refractory bricks can also be included. But, two aspects need to be emphasized here. One, is that the language used is “and the like” and the another, is that the general use of bricks is for constructions of various types of building. Under the circumstances, if the product or item is marketed as bricks, it is for the purpose of construction and in common parlance bricks are used for construction and all such bricks used for construction can be said to be included. The attempt on the part of learned counsel for the respondent / assessee to contend that laying the flooring in a compound or in the garden is also a part of construction activity cannot be accepted for the reason that if such a wide meaning is given to the word “construction” it would result in an absurdity by equating to construction whereas there is no construction, in the strict sense of the term, while paving or laying a flooring with bricks. While giving a meaning to the word “construction” one would normally consider the general meaning of the word “construction” to something to be raised above the surface of the earth and it may also be below the earth’s surface, but would not include construction on the level of the earth or on the surface of the earth and not raised above the surface of the earth. If the aforesaid aspects are considered, it is not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the construction should include flooring in the compound or flooring in the garden as sought be canvassed. In view of the examination of the matter by distinguishing between bricks and the floor bricks or pavers we cannot agree with the view taken by the Gujarat Tribunal as well as Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Hence, we find that the said views of the Tribunal are not correct. Decided in favor of revenue.
|