9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and excluding the inter-State sales and negativing the exemption claimed by the petitioner for works contract and making an estimated addition of 5 per cent for omissions, the assessing authority determined a total turnover at Rs. 14,59,254 and the taxable turnover at Rs. 14,48,042. The petitioner preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in Appeals Nos. 336 and 335 of 1977 in respect of the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 respectively. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, for the year 197475, the petitioner disputed its liability on a turnover of Rs. 1,11,281.94 as well as the rate of tax in respect of a turnover of Rs. 6,98,627.11. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, for the assessment year 1975-76, the petitioner disputed its liability on a turnover of Rs. 2,04,543 and the rate of tax on a turnover of Rs. 8,23,819. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of assessment for the assessment year 1974-75 and dismissed the appeal. However the petitioner was given partial relief in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 by deletion of a turnover of Rs. 68,954 being the additions made to the book turnover. Thereupon, the petitioner p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the value of the contract. Attention in this connection was drawn by the learned counsel for the assessee to the quotations given by the assessee as well as the invoices in respect of the transactions claimed to be works contract to establish that a lump sum amount alone had been fixed as the value of the contract for fabrication, supply and erection of trusses and purlins and floor beams in the premises of the customer. Reliance in this connection was placed by the learned counsel for the assessee upon the decisions in K.A. Ramachar v. State of Madras [1973] 31 STC 598 and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [1984] 55 STC 314 (SC). On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner delivered manufactured goods at the site of the customers and the erection work was merely incidental to the contract of supply of finished goods, which was also attended to by the customers by carrying out the civil works and therefore, the contracts were for the supply of finished goods justifying the inclusion of the turnover referable to those transactions in the assessable turnover of the petitioner. 3.. Regarding the turnover of Rs. 13,339, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons required by different customers in the open market. In that sense, the erection part cannot be considered to be either a negligible part or even being merely incidental to the supply of the floor beams. The actual operation relating to the erection is found in the affidavit of the Sales Manager of the petitioner which is extracted in paragraph 6 of the order of the Tribunal. We are unable to draw therefrom the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that it cannot be said that the petitioners themselves fixed the floor beams to the immovable property of the customers and that the property in the floor beams passed only after they became part of the immovable property. Having regard to the nature of the operations carried out in the process of erection as found in the affidavit of the Sales Manager of the petitioner, we are inclined to take the view that only on erection of the floor beams, the property in them passed to the customers and not at any anterior point of time. We are, therefore, unable to accept as correct the view taken by the Tribunal in this regard. 4.. For the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee has claimed exemption as works contract a turnover of Rs. 95,490.10 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contract, which the assessee had performed only after the trusses and the purlins were erected in the structure as a whole and only then, the property in them as well as the component parts actually passed to the customer after the performance of the contract by erecting the trusses, etc., in the site of the customer. There is nothing to indicate any intention on the part of the assessee to sell the trusses and purlins as such to the customer. On a due consideration of the correspondence as well as the invoices, we are inclined to take the view that the property passed to the customer only on erection at the site of the customer and since the property did not pass at an earlier point of time, it cannot be said that there was an anterior sale of trusses prior to the completion of the erection work. Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the assessee and the customer contemplated a sale by the assessee and a purchase by the customer of the manufactured goods at the rate of Rs. 3,480 per metric tonne cannot be supported. 5.. We are fortified in the aforesaid conclusions of ours by the decisions in K.A. Ramachar v. State of Madras [1973] 31 STC 598 and Hindustan Aeronaut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
