9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, there is no scope for taxation again. This contention was overruled by the assessing authority as well as the Tribunal on going through the various invoices produced. What is now urged before us is that in so far as the petitioners have to supply only the finished product as a motor vehicle namely station wagon or autorickshaw, if the chassis alone is supplied and the body is built by somebody else on which chassis the body is fitted, there cannot be any liability for sales tax. The contract is for supply of finished product namely station wagon or autorickshaw. The Tribunal erred in relying on the decision in Rane (Madras) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1968] 21 STC 420 (Ker)[FB]. This is the only contention raised before us. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chassis No. 003485 1,300.00 -------- 1,300.00 Sales tax 13% 139.00 -------- 1,469.00 -------- (Rupees one thousand four hundred and sixty-nine only.) (TRUE COPY) On this basis it was argued that the body having suffered sales tax, there is no possibility of taxing it over again. We are afraid, it is not the way to look at the matter at all. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the contract is for the delivery of station wagon or autorickshaw. It is worthwhile to quote verbatim the order of the Tribunal which is as follows: "In the cases wherever they were produced, the orders were for supply of a finished van or autorickshaw. There was no specific agreement for the supply of a chassis separately and then to construct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madras under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act revealed that there was sale of a finished vehicle." As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal there are no materials to support the contention as advanced before us that the sale of the chassis and the construction of the body are two different transactions. Orders of the customers were only for finished vans. If, this be the factual position, the fact that the body had suffered tax earlier is of no consequence. The question is whether the sale was of the finished vehicle or that of two independent goods namely the chassis and body. In this connection the ruling in Rane (Madras) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1968] 21 STC 420 (Ker) [FB] becomes very relevant, and rightly it was relied on by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
