2014 (7) TMI 1122 - HC - Income Tax

High Court rules bus body construction as sale, not works contract

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad Versus M/s. AP. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled in favor of the respondent, determining that the activity of building bus bodies constituted a sale rather than a ... Applicability of section 194C to the facts of the case - process of getting the bus bodies built by the fabricators - work or works contract on the one hand or a sale - liability to deduct TDS - Held that:- Once a finished product of a definite description and shape was brought into existence with the material and expertise of the agency or per son, who undertook the activity, and a fixed price is paid thereon, the activity tends to be close to sale. Once it is a sale, it ceases to be a work or works contract, from the point of view of section 194C of the Act. Tribunal correctly reversed the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer, as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) & held that section 194C of the Act has no application to the facts of the case. - Decided against revenue. Issues:1. Whether the activity of building bus bodies by the respondent constitutes a works contract or a sale.2. Whether the respondent was obligated to deduct tax at source under section 194C of the Income-tax Act.Analysis:1. The respondent, a State Road Transport Corporation, acquires vehicles and operates them on various routes. The process involves purchasing chassises suitable for use and getting bus bodies built by fabricators. The Income-tax Officer viewed this as a works contract, leading to tax and interest levies. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the order but directed further verification. The Tribunal reversed the assessment, stating that section 194C does not apply. The appellant argued that the activity is a works contract as the respondent supplied chassises and specified the work. In contrast, the respondent contended it was a sale as they only provided specifications and payment. The Court distinguished between works contract and sale, emphasizing the supply of material and expertise in determining the nature of the activity. The judgment in T. V. Sundaram Iyengar's case was deemed inapplicable due to differing facts, while the judgment in Patnaik's case under the Sales tax Act was considered relevant to establish a sale.2. The key question revolved around whether the activity constituted a works contract or a sale. The Court clarified that when a finished product of a specific description is created with material and expertise, and a fixed price is paid, it leans towards a sale rather than a works contract. The Court highlighted the distinction between works contract and sale, emphasizing the role of expertise and immediate usability of the end product. The judgment in Patnaik's case was cited to support the argument that once an activity is deemed a sale under one enactment, it should be treated as such under another unless defined differently. Ultimately, the Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeals, with no costs awarded.In conclusion, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled in favor of the respondent, determining that the activity of building bus bodies constituted a sale rather than a works contract. The Court emphasized the importance of expertise, material supply, and immediate usability in distinguishing between the two. The judgment in Patnaik's case was instrumental in establishing the nature of the activity as a sale, leading to the dismissal of the appeals filed by the Income-tax Department.