1995 (2) TMI 366 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court rules on indivisible works contract exempt from sales tax

Commissioner of Sales Tax Versus Steel Plant Private Ltd.

Commissioner of Sales Tax Versus Steel Plant Private Ltd. - [1995] 99 STC 532 (Bom) Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of the contract terms.2. Determination of whether the contract is indivisible or divisible.3. Tax implications of the contract type.Summary:1. Interpretation of the Contract Terms:The High Court of Bombay was asked to interpret the terms of a contract dated January 6, 1967, between the assessee, M/s. Steel Plant Pvt. Ltd., and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. The contract involved 'supplying and erecting machinery and electric equipment for the proposed slaughterhouse at Deonar.' The primary question was whether this contract was indivisible for work and labor or divisible into separate contracts for the sale of machinery and equipment and their erection.2. Determination of Whether the Contract is Indivisible or Divisible:The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax initially held that the contract was divisible, thus subjecting the value of the materials to sales tax. However, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal reversed this decision, concluding that the contract was an indivisible works contract. The Tribunal emphasized the main object or intent of the parties, which was the installation and erection of the plant, not merely the sale or supply of goods. The High Court agreed with this interpretation, noting that the contract's scope included supply, erection, testing, and handing over of the entire plant, which required a high degree of skill and was a single, indivisible process.3. Tax Implications of the Contract Type:The High Court examined various clauses of the contract, including payment terms and the 'Bill of quantities,' but concluded that these did not affect the contract's nature. The Court cited precedents from the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the true nature of the contract depends on the main object of the parties and not on the mode of payment or separate pricing of components. The Court also noted that the burden of proving that the contract involved a taxable sale of materials lay with the taxing authorities, which they failed to discharge in this case.Conclusion:The High Court answered the reference in the affirmative, holding that the contract was an indivisible works contract for the supply and erection of machinery and electrical equipment, and thus no sales tax was leviable on the value of the materials involved. The decision was made in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, with no order as to costs.