Tax liability follows the taxable event in works contracts, while reimbursement disputes under sale law need proper contractual adjudication.

Tax liability on supplies made in execution of works contracts was treated as arising on the date of the taxable event, not on the date of the underlying contract; where the taxable event occurred after commencement of the amended Bihar Finance Act, 1981 provisions, tax was payable despite an earlier contract date. A contractor's claim for reimbursement from the principal under section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 could not ordinarily be enforced in writ proceedings, because the entitlement depended on the contract and disputed facts better suited to contractual adjudication or a civil suit.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether tax liability on supplies made in execution of works contracts depended on the date when the contract was entered into or on the date when the taxable event occurred; (ii) whether a contractor could invoke section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 in writ proceedings to enforce reimbursement from the principal.

Issue (i): whether tax liability on supplies made in execution of works contracts depended on the date when the contract was entered into or on the date when the taxable event occurred.

Analysis: The levy under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, as amended in 1984, operated from 1 April 1984. The relevant consideration was not the date of the underlying works contract but the date on which the taxable event occurred. If the taxable event arose on or after the commencement of the amended provisions, tax was payable notwithstanding an earlier contract date.

Conclusion: The liability to sales tax was determined by the date of the taxable event and not by the date of execution of the works contract; this issue was against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): whether a contractor could invoke section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 in writ proceedings to enforce reimbursement from the principal.

Analysis: Section 64-A gives effect to an implied contractual arrangement regarding reimbursement, but the right to recover from the principal depends on the contract and may require adjudication of disputed facts. Such an enquiry cannot ordinarily be undertaken in writ jurisdiction, and the remedy lies in the contractual forum or in a civil suit, as appropriate.

Conclusion: The petitioners could not enforce reimbursement from their principals in writ proceedings; this issue was against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the tax liability turned on the taxable event under the amended fiscal law, while reimbursement disputes under section 64-A had to be pursued in the proper contractual forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where tax liability under an amended fiscal statute depends on the date of the taxable event, an earlier contract does not exempt the transaction from tax, and a contractual reimbursement claim involving disputed facts cannot be enforced in writ jurisdiction.

---