9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (8) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious types. But, it can be taken generally that in all these 16 cases, the assessee undertook to fabricate, supply and erect iron trusses, purlins, etc., at the premises of the customers. The facts, as found by the Tribunal, are that in most of the cases, the various parts of the trusses were fabricated in the assessee's factory, then transported to the workspots, assembled there and erected in accordance with the specification and requirement of the customers. According to the assessee, these transactions were not outright transactions of sale, but were only works contracts, and that a lump sum amount has been fixed as the value of the contract. The question is whether in the fabrication, supply and erection of the iron trusses, purlins, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is whether the amounts received by the assessee in respect of each of the transactions can be taken to be the sale price of the trusses or whether it is a payment received towards a works contract. Such a question came up before the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd.[1969] 24 S.T.C. 349 (S.C.). In that case, pursuant to a notification of the executive engineer, the assessee submitted its tender for fabricating and fixing certain windows in accordance with the designs, specifications, drawings and instructions. The rate quoted by the assessee was based on the current price of the mild steel billets and the price was to be revised if there was a change in the control price of billets supplied to the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was not possible to separate the same into two; one a contract of sale, and another a contract of work, labour and materials. The same view was taken in Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) v. Indian Refrigeration Industries P. Ltd.[1971] 27 S.T.C. 427. There, the assessee entered into a lump sum contract to fabricate and install a humidifying plant and other accessories with air-ducts embedded in the building of the customer. Such installation had to be done along with the construction of the building with the assessee rendering technical assistance to the architects and other construction contractors during the course of the erection of the building. The claim of the assessee that the turnover relating to the contract was exempt from sales tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it could be said that there was an anterior sale of the trusses before the work of erection was completed. Though the Tribunal took the disputed turnover in relation to these transactions as Rs. 1,66,693.93, the learned counsel for the assessee concedes that two items covering a turnover of Rs. 2,850 can be treated as a sale of goods, and that he may not be able to attack the findings of the Tribunal in that regard. In view of that concession, we have taken the disputed turnover as Rs. 1,63,843.93. Following the decisions referred to above, this tax case has to be allowed and it is allowed in part. The assessee will get the costs from the revenue. Counsel's fee Rs. 150. Petition partly allowed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - CST, VAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
