Composite pandal erection is not a sale, but separate hire of movable goods remains taxable under amended sales law.

Erection and hiring of temporary pandals, pavilions and rostrums by decorators was treated as a composite service of erection and dismantling, not a transfer of the right to use goods, because the customer obtained no independent right over the underlying materials; the activity was therefore not sale and not liable to sales tax. Separate hire of movable articles such as tables, chairs, carpets and crockery was distinguished as a hiring of goods capable of falling within the amended definition of sale, and was taxable where the statutory turnover threshold was met. The challenge succeeded only for pandals and similar structures, while taxability of other hired movable goods was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether erection and hiring of pandals, pavilions and rostrums by decorators amounted to a transfer of the right to use goods within the meaning of the amended definition of sale; (ii) whether other articles let out by decorators on hire fell within the amended definition of sale and were taxable.

Issue (i): Whether erection and hiring of pandals, pavilions and rostrums by decorators amounted to a transfer of the right to use goods within the meaning of the amended definition of sale.

Analysis: The materials used for erecting pandals and similar structures were found to be employed by the decorators themselves for rendering a composite service of erection and dismantling. The customer did not obtain a right to use those materials in any manner of its own choice. The structures were temporary, dismantlable and removable, but the transaction was not treated as a letting out of materials as goods. On that basis, the activity was held not to be a sale under the amended statutory definition.

Conclusion: The erection and hiring of pandals, pavilions and rostrums did not amount to a sale and was not exigible to sales tax.

Issue (ii): Whether other articles let out by decorators on hire fell within the amended definition of sale and were taxable.

Analysis: A distinction was drawn between the composite service of erecting pandals and the separate business of letting out movable items such as tables, chairs, carpets and crockery. Such articles were held to be goods capable of being hired out, and their hire could attract the amended definition of sale if the statutory turnover threshold was crossed.

Conclusion: Other movable articles let out by decorators on hire were liable to be treated as sale and could be assessed to tax.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only in relation to taxation of pandals and similar erections, while the taxability of other hired movable goods was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A decorator's composite service of erecting temporary pandals or similar structures, where the customer acquires no independent right to use the underlying materials, is not a transfer of the right to use goods; however, separate hire of movable goods remains taxable under the amended sales tax definition.

---