Supply contract classification for railway ballast work prevailed over works contract treatment on the contract's overall terms.

A contract for collection, lifting, dumping and spreading stone ballast along railway tracks was treated as a supply arrangement rather than a works contract because the contractor's role, read as a whole, was to supply ballast with incidental handling and placement as directed by the purchaser. The railway's clarification described the work modes as substantively identical, and the contractual terms required collection, stacking, lifting and dumping in accordance with railway instructions. On that basis, the reassessment and revisional orders were sustained and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the contract for collection, lifting, dumping and spreading of stone ballast along the railway track was a works contract or a contract of supply of goods.

Analysis: The contract documents required the contractor to collect, stack, lift and dump the ballast along the railway line in accordance with railway directions. The clarification issued by the railway described the two modes of work and stated that the nature of work in both cases was identical. On an overall consideration of the contractual terms and the actual work undertaken, the activity was treated as one involving supply and delivery of ballast rather than execution of a works contract.

Conclusion: The transaction was held to be a contract of supply of ballast and not a works contract.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment and revisional orders were sustained, and the petitions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the contract, read as a whole, shows that the contractor is engaged in supplying goods with associated handling and placement as required by the purchaser, the transaction is a supply contract and not a works contract.

---