9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 336 - HC - Income TaxTDS u/s 194C Supply contract Contract for sale Work contract Petitioner enter into an agreement with Government of Tripura for supply of salt on sale As per agreement there shall be a deduction of 2% from each bill towards income tax - Circular No.13/2006 Assessee challenged incorporation of that clause that it was a contract for sale and so deduction of tax @ 2% at source from the bill is not permissible under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 Held that - The tender clause and agreement signed between the parties clearly specify that the order issued to the petitioner was for supply of Super Fine Crushed White Iodised Salt in 1(one) kg poly packet to be supplied to the respective places as defined in the agreement at a clear rate of Rs.6,000/- per matric ton i.e. Rs.600/- (Rupees six hundred) per quintal, which makes it abundantly clear that it was a contract of supply on clear sale. There is no element of a supply on execution of a work contract. In view of circular No.13/2006, until and unless any other circular or clarification is made by the appropriate authority, the respondents shall not deduct income tax from the bills of the petitioners towards supply of salt under the agreement which is found to be agreement for supply on sale. In favour of petitioner
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the contract (whether it is a contract for sale or a work contract). 2. Applicability of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of the Contract: The primary issue revolves around the classification of the contract between the petitioners and the Government of Tripura. The petitioners were contracted to supply 'Super Fine Crushed White Iodized Salt' under specific terms and conditions. The agreement clauses detailed the supply logistics, including transportation, packing, and delivery to various godowns at specified rates. The petitioners argued that the contract was purely for the sale of goods, not a work contract. The respondents contended that the contract involved additional elements like packing and transportation, which they claimed constituted a work contract. The court examined the agreement, which specified the supply of salt at fixed rates per quintal for different locations. It concluded that the contract was for the supply of goods on sale, with no elements of a work contract. The court referred to a previous judgment (Writ Appeal No.102/1997) where a similar issue was adjudicated, confirming that such contracts were considered contracts for sale. 2. Applicability of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The petitioners challenged the deduction of 2% income tax at source from their bills, asserting that Section 194C, which pertains to work contracts, was not applicable to their contract for the sale of goods. They cited a clarificatory memo from the Commissioner of Income Tax, NER, Shillong, which stated that no TDS was required for contracts of sale. The court referred to Circular No.13/2006, which clarified that TDS under Section 194C applies only to work contracts and not to contracts for sale. The circular resolved contradictions between previous circulars by emphasizing that TDS should be deducted only if the contract is classified as a work contract. The respondents argued that the contract included packing and transportation, thus qualifying as a work contract. However, the court found that the agreement was solely for the supply of salt at a fixed rate, with no additional work elements that would necessitate TDS under Section 194C. The court reiterated its earlier stance from the 1997 judgment, confirming that the Commissioner of Income Tax's view that the contract was for sale remained operative. Consequently, the respondents were instructed not to deduct income tax at 2% from the petitioners' bills under Section 194C. Conclusion: The court concluded that the contract between the petitioners and the Government of Tripura was a contract for the sale of goods and not a work contract. Therefore, the provisions of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding TDS were not applicable. The court directed that no income tax should be deducted from the petitioners' bills for the supply of salt under the agreement. Disposition: All writ petitions were disposed of with the observation that the respondents shall not deduct income tax from the petitioners' bills towards the supply of salt under the agreement, which was found to be an agreement for the supply on sale.
|
