Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the contract for building, erecting and furnishing coach bodies on railway underframes was a works contract not amounting to a sale, or a transaction of sale liable to sales tax.
Analysis: The contract, read as a whole, described the respondent's obligation as construction and furnishing of coach bodies on underframes supplied by the Railway. The terms treated materials brought to site and the unfinished coach bodies as the Railway's property during the course of construction, and the risk allocation clause was consistent with that ownership arrangement. The contract did not contemplate delivery of ready-made coach bodies as goods for sale, but an entire and indivisible execution of work. The facts were distinguishable from the earlier bus-body case relied upon by the appellant, where the indicia pointed to a sale.
Conclusion: The transaction was a works contract and not a sale; no sales tax was payable on that footing.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's view was upheld and the State's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the contract is an entire and indivisible agreement for construction work, and the materials and work-in-progress are treated as the employer's property during execution, the transaction is a works contract and not a sale.