1989 (2) TMI 376 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court: Contract with Electricity Board is Works Contract, not Sale. Revisions Allowed.

The High Court determined that the contract between the assessee and the U.P. State Electricity Board was a works contract, not a contract for sale. It ... - Issues Involved:1. Nature of the Contract: Contract for Sale vs. Works Contract2. Ownership and Utilization of Raw Materials3. Applicability of Sales TaxDetailed Analysis:1. Nature of the Contract: Contract for Sale vs. Works ContractThe primary issue was whether the contract between the assessee and the U.P. State Electricity Board was a contract for sale or a works contract. The assessee contended that the contract was for work and labor, not for the sale of goods, and thus not subject to sales tax. The assessing authority, however, treated the supplies as taxable sales.The High Court emphasized that no hard and fast rule could determine whether a contract was for sale or work; it depended on the totality of the terms and conditions and the circumstances necessitating the contract. The Supreme Court's tests, as laid out in cases like Ram Singh & Sons Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., were pivotal. These tests focused on whether the contract's main object was the transfer of property in a chattel or the execution of work involving labor and service.The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) initially ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the contract was for work, not for sale, based on the principles from the Supreme Court's decisions. However, the Sales Tax Tribunal reversed this decision, viewing the contract as a sale. The High Court found that the Tribunal had overlooked the Assistant Commissioner's reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in Ram Singh & Sons, which was crucial to the case.2. Ownership and Utilization of Raw MaterialsA significant aspect was whether the raw materials provided by the U.P. State Electricity Board to the assessee remained the Board's property or transferred to the assessee. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) found that the raw materials (except water) were supplied by the Board, and the recovery was made at specified rates to ensure proper utilization. The materials were held in trust by the assessee, and ownership remained with the Board.The Tribunal's view that the ownership transferred to the assessee upon receipt of the materials was challenged by the High Court. The letter dated 26th October 1979, clarifying that the raw materials' property remained with the Board, was crucial. The High Court concluded that the materials' ownership did not transfer to the assessee, aligning with the Assistant Commissioner's findings.3. Applicability of Sales TaxThe applicability of sales tax hinged on whether the contract was for sale or work. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had erroneously dismissed the Assistant Commissioner's reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in Ram Singh & Sons, which supported the view that the contract was for work. The High Court reiterated that the contract should be read as a whole, and isolated terms could not determine its nature.The High Court ultimately ruled that the contract was a works contract, not a contract for sale, and thus, the supplies were not subject to sales tax. The Tribunal's order was quashed, and the revisions were allowed, with each party bearing its own costs.Conclusion:The High Court's judgment clarified that the contract between the assessee and the U.P. State Electricity Board was a works contract, not a contract for sale, based on the totality of the terms and conditions and the Supreme Court's established tests. The raw materials provided by the Board remained its property, and the supplies were not subject to sales tax. The Tribunal's order was quashed, and the revisions were allowed.