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 providing and fixing PVC stadium chairs on stainless steel framework was a works contract involving transfer not in the form of goods, and whether the Tribunal's finding on that question was perverse.
Analysis: The contract was a composite one involving fabrication of stainless steel frames, welding, grinding, polishing, anchoring and fixing of PVC seating elements to the pre-cast stadium structure. The dominant work was fabrication and installation, and the chairs could not be treated as marketable goods sold as such. The distinction drawn from cases involving rolling shutters, pipelines or lifts did not assist the Revenue on these facts, since the essential question was whether the goods retained their identity after incorporation. The Tribunal's appreciation of the agreement, the work schedule and the engineering explanation showed that the transfer occurred through incorporation in the works and not as goods simpliciter.
Conclusion: The contract was correctly treated as a works contract with transfer not in the form of goods, and the Tribunal's finding was not perverse. The question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.