Steel structures fabricated for works contracts are unscheduled goods taxable at the higher rate of 13.5 percent.

The petitioner, a company engaged in infrastructure projects (Ganga Bridge project), challenged the recovery of taxes and sought refunds for the periods 2005-06, 2006-07, 2011-12, and 2012-13.

In CWJC No. 3800/2019, the tax authorities reassessed the petitioner's liability for 2012-13, treating "steel structures" as unscheduled goods taxable at 13.5% instead of "declared goods" (iron and steel) taxable at 5%, and disallowed certain labour deductions.

In the remaining three writ petitions, the petitioner sought refunds based on set-aside penalty orders and unadjusted Input Tax Credit (ITC).

The State contested these claims, alleging non-submission of documents, failure to file Tax Audit Reports, and existing tax dues for subsequent years.

Whether iron and steel structures used in a works contract qualify as "declared goods" under Section 14 of the CST Act or as unscheduled goods taxable at a higher rate under the Bihar VAT Act.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the refund of deposited penalties and unadjusted Input Tax Credit despite alleged procedural non-compliance and outstanding tax liabilities.

The Court considered Section 14(1)(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which defines "declared goods" of special importance.

It applied the charging provisions of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005, regarding the classification of scheduled versus unscheduled goods.

Furthermore, the court referred to Section 33 (Audit), Section 37 (Limitation for assessment/penalty), Section 41(6) (Penalty for non-deduction of TDS), and Sections 68-70 of the Bihar VAT Act, which govern the procedure for refunds and the state’s right to set off refunds against existing tax dues.

The Court noted that the outcome of the primary challenge (CWJC No. 3800/2019) was dictated by previous decisions in related matters (CWJC No. 3600/2020 and others), which had already resolved the common legal questions against the petitioner.

Regarding the refund claims, the Court observed that the respondents had provided specific factual rebuttals in their counter-affidavits—notably that the petitioner failed to file Tax Audit Reports required under Section 16(1), provided contradictory purchase figures compared to VATMIs data, and owed significant tax arrears for 2013-14 which precluded refunds under Sections 68-70.

The Court emphasized that the petitioner failed to file rejoinders or deny these specific allegations of factual discrepancies and "false" claims despite having ample time, leading the Court to accept the State’s position.

It held that CWJC No. 3800/2019 was liable for dismissal following the precedent set in the connected cases.

Regarding the refund petitions (CWJC Nos. 13258, 13286, and 13854 of 2019), the Court held they lacked merit as the petitioner failed to rebut the State's evidence of procedural non-compliance and outstanding tax dues.

No relief or refund was granted.