Classification of Elevator Contracts: Sale or Works Contract? Registry to Refer for Constitution Bench Review

The case involved determining whether activities related to the manufacture, supply, and installation of lifts should be classified as a "sale" or a "works contract." In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kone Elevators (India) Ltd., it was held that such contracts constituted a "sale." However, conflicting views from previous decisions led to the matter being referred to a Constitution Bench for further examination and resolution. The Registry was directed to present the cases before the Constitution Bench for a comprehensive review and decision.

---

---

Issues:
Whether manufacture, supply, and installation of lifts are to be treated as "sale" or "works contract".

Analysis:
The judgment involves a crucial consideration of whether the activities related to the manufacture, supply, and installation of lifts should be categorized as a "sale" or a "works contract." The petitioners raised significant legal questions, leading to the matters being referred to a three-judge Bench for deliberation.

In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kone Elevators (India) Ltd., it was established that such contracts constituted a "sale" rather than a "works contract," emphasizing the minimal service element provided by the elevator vendor. However, the petitioners argued against this view, citing previous decisions like State of Rajasthan v. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd., State of Rajasthan v. Nenu Ram, and Vanguard Rolling Shutters & Steel Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., which presented a different perspective not considered in the Kone Elevators case.

The counsel representing the States of Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu supported the decision in the Kone Elevators case and referenced Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh. Additionally, they contended that the petitions under article 32 were not maintainable, indicating that these arguments could be raised during the final hearing. Due to the conflicting views expressed by three-judge Benches of the court and the significance of the issues at hand, the matters were referred to a Constitution Bench for further examination and resolution. The Registry was instructed to proceed with the necessary steps to present the cases before the Constitution Bench for a comprehensive review and decision.

---