Steel structures in works contracts are unscheduled goods taxable at higher rates, not declared goods.

The petitioner, a construction company, executed steel structure works for the Ganga Bridge project.

In CWJC 3800/2019, tax authorities reassessed the petitioner, treating "fabricated steel structures" as unscheduled goods taxable at 13.5% rather than "iron and steel" at 5%

Authorities further disallowed labor deductions due to lack of documentation.

In the remaining three writ petitions, the petitioner sought refunds for the periods 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2011-12.

These refunds pertained to penalties set aside in revision and allegedly unadjusted Input Tax Credit (ITC).

The State contested the refunds, citing procedural failures, pending dues for other years, and discrepancies between returns and the Value Added Tax Management Information System (VATMIS).

Whether fabricated iron and steel structures used in a works contract qualify as "declared goods" under Section 14 of the CST Act taxable at 5%, or as unscheduled goods taxable at 13.5% under the Bihar VAT Act

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of taxes and penalties when there are outstanding tax demands for subsequent assessment years

Whether a refund of Input Tax Credit can be granted without the filing of a Tax Audit Report (TAR) as mandated by the statute

The Court applied Section 14(1)(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, regarding "declared goods"

It further relied on Sections 16(1) and 16(1A) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which mandate the filing of a Tax Audit Report as a precondition for ITC refunds

The Court also applied Sections 68, 69, and 70 of the Bihar VAT Act, which stipulate that refunds cannot be processed if the dealer owes outstanding tax arrears to the Department for any other period.

Additionally, the principle of factual finality was applied where averments in a counter-affidavit remain unrebutted by a rejoinder.

Regarding CWJC 3800/2019, the Court noted that the core legal questions regarding the classification of steel structures and labor deductions were identical to those decided against the petitioner in previous litigations (CWJC 3600/2020 and others), necessitating dismissal based on precedent

Regarding the refund claims, the Court observed that the petitioner failed to satisfy statutory prerequisites, such as filing the Tax Audit Report under Section 16

Furthermore, the State established that the petitioner had significant outstanding tax liabilities exceeding Rs. 33 Crores for the year 2013-14, which, under Sections 68-70, legally barred any refund payouts for earlier years

The Court highlighted that the petitioner failed to file any rejoinder to refute the State's specific allegations of "false and contradictory" ITC claims and discrepancies in VATMIS records

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the refund of Rs. 18.52 Crores or the unadjusted ITC, as the claims were either covered by adverse precedents or hit by statutory bars regarding outstanding dues and failure to submit mandatory audit reports

The Court concluded that since the petitioner did not deny the factual discrepancies raised in the State's counter-affidavits, the claims lacked merit.

No relief was granted.