9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (8) TMI 114 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether a supply of materials by the Union of India to its contractors under agreements of works contract would amount to a sale so as to attract the provision of the Sales Tax Act? Held that - Union is not exempted from the levy of indirect tax under Article 285 of the Constitution.The levy under the local Act being a single point tax and the appellant having suffered the same when it purchased the material in question and same material cannot be subjected to another levy on its transfer to the contractor. This argument requires consideration of factual matrix of the case concerned, whether the levy in question is a single point tax and material purchased by the appellants had suffered the levy at the point of purchase by appellants or not are matters to be decided by the authorities concerned and if the same is not already decided and has not become final, it will be open to the appellants to urge this question before the appropriate authorities. For the reasons stated above these appeals fail and are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Article 285 of the Constitution of India. 2. Authority of the State to levy Sales Tax on the Union for materials supplied to its contractors. 3. Whether the supply of materials by the Union of India to its contractors under works contracts amounts to a sale under the Sales Tax Act. 4. Whether the Union of India can be considered a dealer under the Sales Tax Act. 5. Applicability of single point tax under the local Sales Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Article 285 of the Constitution of India: The Supreme Court examined the constitutional question regarding the State's authority to levy Sales Tax on the Union's transactions. The appellants argued that under Article 285, the property of the Union is exempt from state taxation. However, the Court referred to previous judgments, particularly the Sea Customs case and the New Delhi Municipal Council case, which established that Article 285 exempts the Union from direct taxes but not from indirect taxes like Sales Tax. The Court concluded that the Union is not exempt from the levy of indirect taxes under Article 285. 2. Authority of the State to levy Sales Tax on the Union for materials supplied to its contractors: The appellants contended that the materials supplied to contractors did not constitute a sale, as the contractors were merely custodians of the materials. The High Court of Rajasthan had rejected this contention, holding that the transactions amounted to a sale under the Sales Tax Act. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the transfer of materials to contractors, with consideration adjusted in the final bills, constituted a sale. The Court referenced the M/s. N.M. Goel & Co. case, which held that the use or consumption of materials in construction work constitutes a sale. 3. Whether the supply of materials by the Union of India to its contractors under works contracts amounts to a sale under the Sales Tax Act: The Court analyzed the contractual clauses and previous judgments to determine if the supply of materials amounted to a sale. It concluded that the transfer of property and consideration adjustment in bills met the definition of a sale under the local Sales Tax Act. The Court cited the Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. case, which affirmed that the supply of materials for construction work, with value adjusted in bills, constituted a sale. 4. Whether the Union of India can be considered a dealer under the Sales Tax Act: The appellants argued that the Union of India could not be considered a dealer under Section 2(14) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The Court rejected this argument, referencing previous judgments that established the Union's liability as a dealer when engaging in transactions that meet the definition of a sale under the Sales Tax Act. 5. Applicability of single point tax under the local Sales Tax Act: One appellant argued that the local Sales Tax Act imposes a single point tax, and since the materials had already been taxed at the point of purchase by the Union, they should not be taxed again when supplied to contractors. The Court stated that this argument required a factual determination by the relevant authorities. If the issue had not been resolved, the appellants could raise it before the appropriate authorities. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's judgment that the transactions in question constituted sales under the Sales Tax Act and that the Union of India was liable for Sales Tax on these transactions. The Court clarified that Article 285 does not exempt the Union from indirect taxes and that the Union can be considered a dealer under the Sales Tax Act. The issue of single point tax applicability was left to be determined by the relevant authorities.
|
