1980 (7) TMI 236 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the transaction between the assessee and the public works department constitutes a sale as defined under the Orissa Sales Tax Act?
2. Whether the contract entered in the F-2 standard form is a works contract, making sales tax not payable?

Analysis:
The judgment by the Orissa High Court involved the interpretation of whether a transaction between an assessee and the public works department constituted a sale as per the Orissa Sales Tax Act and whether a contract in the F-2 standard form qualified as a works contract exempt from sales tax. The court referred to a previous case, State of Orissa v. Utkal Distributors Private Ltd., where the nature of a similar contract was analyzed. The court emphasized the importance of determining the true character of the transaction to decide if it was a sale or a works contract. The court examined clauses in the contract to ascertain the ownership of the materials involved in the transaction.

The court referenced the case of Chandra Bhan Gosain v. State of Orissa, where the Supreme Court highlighted the significance of ownership in determining if a transaction constituted a sale. The court concluded that the supply of materials by the contractor to the public works department constituted a sale, based on the ownership of the materials. The court also discussed the meaning of royalty, citing previous cases to support the conclusion that payment of royalty conferred ownership rights to the contractor.

Further, the court analyzed the concept of "sale" as defined in the Sales Tax Act and referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co., emphasizing the essential elements of a sale transaction. The court highlighted that payment of royalty could be considered as part of the sale price, leading to the appropriation of goods and ownership transfer. The court rejected arguments challenging the observations of the Supreme Court and affirmed the conclusion that the transaction in question constituted a sale, not a works contract.

In the specific case before the court, the contract terms indicated that the assessee owned the goods and sold them to the public works department, making the sale price subject to tax. The court disagreed with the view that it was a works contract, asserting that the assessee's ownership of the goods aligned with a sale transaction. Ultimately, the court answered both questions in favor of considering the transaction as a sale liable to tax and not a works contract. The assessee was directed to bear the costs, and the reference was answered accordingly by the judges concurring with the decision.