TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Contract for Road Works Not Subject to Sales Tax; Indivisible Nature, Prohibition Writ Issued</h1> <h3>M Vairakannu and Others Versus The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Thanjavur II and Others</h3> M Vairakannu and Others Versus The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Thanjavur II and Others - [1972] 29 STC 137 (Mad) Issues:1. Interpretation of a contract between a contractor and the Highways Department.2. Determination of whether the contract involves a sale of goods for the purpose of sales tax.3. Consideration of whether the contract is divisible.4. Analysis of the appropriateness of issuing a writ of prohibition in the given circumstances.Interpretation of the Contract:The judgment revolves around the interpretation of a contract between a contractor and the Highways Department for road works. The contract required the contractor to carry out repairs on roads, including sourcing materials like metal from a state quarry. The consideration for the contract was fixed, with payments made either in a lump sum or after final measurements. The court emphasized that the contract created a relationship between the parties based on reciprocal obligations, rather than a buyer-seller relationship. The contractor's obligation to take back rejected materials was deemed a benefit to the department and did not impact the legal nature of the contract.Sale of Goods for Sales Tax Purposes:The core issue was whether the contract constituted a sale of goods, attracting sales tax liability. The assessing authority contended that the contract involved a sale, triggering the application of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. However, the court analyzed previous decisions, including a Supreme Court ruling, to determine that the contractor did not transfer ownership of materials to the department, negating the existence of a sale. The court rejected the argument that the contractor's obligation to remove rejected materials implied ownership, emphasizing that it was for the department's benefit.Divisibility of the Contract:The government pleader argued that the contract could be viewed as divisible, but the court found this contention baseless. The contract, which involved quarrying on state-owned land, did not allow for the dissection of an indivisible contract. The court emphasized that the materials supplied always belonged to the state, precluding any notion of divisibility.Issuance of Writ of Prohibition:The court addressed the appropriateness of issuing a writ of prohibition against the assessing authority. While writs of prohibition are sparingly issued, they are warranted in cases of jurisdictional absence. Citing precedents, the court established that if there is a lack of jurisdiction on the part of the assessing authority, a writ of prohibition can be issued to prevent further assessment. The court concluded that in the absence of jurisdiction, the writ petitions were allowed, and the rule nisi was made absolute, with no costs awarded.In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the contractual relationship, the absence of a sale of goods, the indivisibility of the contract, and the appropriateness of issuing a writ of prohibition in the given circumstances.
TaxTMI 