1981 (1) TMI 224 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of turnover for rubberisation of steel wheels and top rollers as sale proceeds or receipts in execution of works contract.

Analysis:
The case involved tax revision cases concerning the liability to tax of turnover for rubberisation of steel wheels and top rollers. The assessee, a public limited company manufacturing and dealing in tires, entered into a contract with the Government of India for rubberising wheels and top rollers. The process of rubberisation involved various technical steps like degreasing, grit-blasting, coating with adhesives, vulcanisation, and painting. The Tribunal held that the process was akin to a works contract, not a sale of chattel, as it involved irreversible integration and technical complexity.

The Tribunal's decision was challenged based on the Supreme Court's ruling in T.V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons v. State of Madras, which emphasized that property in the material used does not pass until the final product is delivered. The Tribunal's attempt to distinguish this precedent was found inadequate as the property in the rubber portion did not pass during the process. The judgment highlighted that the rubberised portion was movable property affixed to the wheel, not immovable property.

The judgment also discussed the principles laid down in other cases like Union of India v. Central India Machinery Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Ram Singh & Sons Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, which supported the view that the transaction should be treated as a sale. The decision in Stanes Motors (South India) Ltd. v. State of Madras regarding retreading was considered but found inapplicable due to the nature of the process involved in rubberisation.

Ultimately, the Court held that the turnover for rubberisation was liable for sales tax, as the parties intended the transaction to be a sale, not a works contract. The Tribunal's decision was set aside, and the additional tax was deemed consequential to the turnover being subject to sales tax. The petitioner was awarded costs due to the absence of their representation during the proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the distinction between a works contract and a sale of goods in the context of rubberisation processes, emphasizing the passing of property and the intention of the parties involved in determining the tax liability of the turnover.