1977 (3) TMI 122 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Supreme Court: Rolling shutter contract is works, not sale; rules in favor of assessee

Vanguard Rolling Shutters & Steel Works Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP.

Vanguard Rolling Shutters & Steel Works Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP. - [1977] 39 STC 372 (SC), 1977 AIR 1505, 1977 (3) SCR 165, 1977 (2) SCC 250 Issues Involved:1. Whether the supply of shutters and iron gates worth Rs. 1,08,633.08 was a sale or amounted to a works contract.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Nature of the Contract:The primary issue was to determine whether the contract for the supply and installation of rolling shutters constituted a 'sale' or a 'works contract.' The assessee argued that the contract was a works contract, not liable to sales tax, as it involved fabrication and installation of rolling shutters according to the client's specifications, making it a composite contract involving both labor and materials.2. Assessment by Authorities:The Sales Tax Officer initially rejected the assessee's claim, treating the transaction as a sale. This decision was upheld by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). However, the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, accepted the assessee's plea, categorizing the transaction as a works contract. The High Court later reversed this decision, concluding that the contract was for the supply of goods, thus making it liable to sales tax.3. Contractual Terms and Execution:The contract required the assessee to fabricate rolling shutters, transport them to the site, and install them. The contract specified that full payment was required before dispatch, materials were transported at the client's cost, and the contractor's responsibility ceased after delivery. The shutters were assembled and fixed at the site, becoming permanent fixtures to the building.4. Legal Precedents and Tests:The judgment referenced several precedents, including State of Rajasthan v. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. and Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Purshottam Premji, which provided guidelines for distinguishing between a works contract and a sale. The key test was whether the contract primarily involved the supply of materials with incidental labor or was fundamentally a contract for labor and services with incidental supply of materials.5. Analysis of the High Court's Decision:The High Court relied on T.V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons v. State of Madras, where building bus bodies was considered a sale. However, the Supreme Court found this case distinguishable, as the bus bodies were movable and detachable, unlike the fixed and permanent nature of the rolling shutters in the present case.6. Supreme Court's Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the contract was a works contract, as the shutters were fabricated, transported, and installed in a manner that made them permanent fixtures to the building. The contract was indivisible, involving both materials and labor for a lump sum, and the materials did not pass as chattel simpliciter but became an integral part of the immovable property.7. Final Judgment:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order, and restored the decision of the revising authority, holding that the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax. The Court emphasized that the contract was a works contract, not a sale of goods, and awarded costs to the appellant throughout.Conclusion:The Supreme Court's judgment clarified that the nature of a contract must be assessed based on its terms and execution, and a contract involving significant labor and resulting in permanent fixtures to immovable property is a works contract, not subject to sales tax.