https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151225 A contract for supplying and laying underground cables was treated as divisible rather than an indivisible works contract because the schedule separately fixed rates for cable supply and for excavation and laying, indicating distinct sale and labour components. The agreement was not a lump sum contract, and the guarantee terms differentiated defects in material from defects in workmanship. The railway's retention of unused cable also pointed against a purely composite works arrangement. Authorities cited for the assessee were distinguished on their facts, including lump sum pricing and greater technical complexity. The referred question was answered in favour of the revenue, and the assessee's indivisible-contract argument was rejected. en-us Wed, 10 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Jun 2013 17:48:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151225 A contract for supplying and laying underground cables was treated as divisible rather than an indivisible works contract because the schedule separately fixed rates for cable supply and for excavation and laying, indicating distinct sale and labour components. The agreement was not a lump sum contract, and the guarantee terms differentiated defects in material from defects in workmanship. The railway's retention of unused cable also pointed against a purely composite works arrangement. Authorities cited for the assessee were distinguished on their facts, including lump sum pricing and greater technical complexity. The referred question was answered in favour of the revenue, and the assessee's indivisible-contract argument was rejected. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 10 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151225