Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the contract for designing, manufacturing, supplying, transporting, erecting and commissioning compressors constituted a works contract or a sale transaction liable to tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Analysis: The contract was construed as a whole and its clauses showed that the purchaser was to provide the site, foundation, civil works, electricity and crane facilities, while the contractor's principal obligation was supply of equipment. The price structure treated the bulk of the consideration as cost of compressors and allied equipment, with only a small part attributable to transportation, handling, erection, testing and pre-commissioning. The invoices also reflected supply of compressors against the work order. Applying the principles governing composite contracts and the tests reiterated in Kone Elevator, the contractual setting showed that the labour and erection elements were only incidental and the dominant character of the transaction was supply of equipment.
Conclusion: The contract was not a works contract; it was a contract for sale of equipment, and the supplies were liable to tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the terms of a composite agreement show that the purchaser undertakes the preparatory civil work and the contractor's principal obligation is supply of goods, with only an incidental labour component, the transaction is to be treated as a sale and not as a works contract.