9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (7) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a lump sum of about Rs. 57,86,500 on the forms and general conditions supplied. On the 21st of December, 1955, the Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited accepted the petitioner's tender and asked the petitioner to deposit a security of 2 per cent of the amount of the tender. After depositing the security the petitioner proceeded to execute the lump sum contracts for construction of the bungalows. On the 25th of April, 1956, the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Jamshedpur, issued a notice under section 13 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act calling upon the petitioner to produce books of account etc. The petitioner objected that no sales tax was payable as there was a lump sum building contract, but the objection was rejected by the Superintendent o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct have not been produced on behalf of the petitioner in this case. In the absence of the formal contract it is difficult for me to say whether this case comes within the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Company (Madras) Limited[1958] 9 S.T.C. 353. It is possible that the parties may have entered into distinct and separate contracts, one for the transfer of materials for money consideration and the other for payment of remuneration for services and for work done. In such a case there would be really two agreements, though there is a single instrument embodying them, and the power of the State to separate the agreement to sell from the agreement to do work and render service and to impose a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll be for the Sales Tax Authorities to determine whether the contract between the parties upon its true construction is a lump sum contract or whether it is a combination of two agreements, namely, an agreement to sell and an agreement to work, and if the authorities come to the conclusion that such is its character then it would be open to them to proceed against that part of the contract which is contract for sale of goods and impose a tax thereon. The order that I propose to make is on similar lines to the order made by the Supreme Court in Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others[1958] 9 S.T.C. 388. Acting in exercise of the authority conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution I would allow the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
