9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (7) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed up the facts of the case as follows in its order dated 16th February, 1960: "The turnover assessed relates to a building contract dated 21st February, 1951, entered into by the appellants with M/s. J. P. Coats Ltd., Glasgow. The total amount of the contract was Rs. 1,52,986-14-6. 70 per cent. of the same, i.e., Rs. 1,07,090-14-6 was treated as the assessable turnover under rule 4(3) of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Rules. To this was added Rs. 9,710-1-6 representing miscellaneous sales. The appellants were accordingly assessed on a turnover of Rs. 1,16,801." 3.. The contention of the petitioner is that the sum of Rs. 1,07,090-14-6 is not assessable to sales tax in view of the definitions embodied in section 2 of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty." There can be no doubt that the contract with which we are concerned is a "works contract" as defined in the Act. 6.. According to section 2(j) of the Act "'sale' with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means every transfer of the property in goods by one person to another in the course of trade or business for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration and includes also a transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract." 7.. In view of these definitions the only question that can arise, and the only question that is raised before us, is whether the petitioner is not liable to sales tax because of the definition of the expressions "dealer" and "goods" in section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terials used in the building contracts." 9.. In Gannon Dunkerley and Co., Madras (Private) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Mattancheri[1957] 8 S.T.C. 347., a contention similar to the one urged before us was considered and negatived by this Court. In paragraph 17 of the judgment the Court said: "The second contention is that even if the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, is not ultra vires of the Constitution, the legislative intent was only to tax the sale of goods strictly so called and that the intent is manifest from the preamble which says, 'whereas it is expedient to provide for the levy of a general tax on the sale of goods in the State of Travancore-Cochin; it is hereby enacted as follows'." and held "that the legislative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uth India Corporation (Private) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum, and Others [1961] 12 S.T.C. 344; 1961 K.L.J. 255., Ansari, C.J., quoted the above extract and summarised the Kerala cases on the subject as follows: "Provisions in the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act authorising levy of the tax on transfer of goods in works contract were earlier challenged before the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Gannon Dunkerley and Co., Madras (Private) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Mattancheri[1957] 8 S.T.C. 347., but the Division Bench did not uphold the objection on the ground that the Legislature, which had enacted that law, was not circumscribed by any limitation of powers similar to item 48 of List II of the Government of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
