TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1956 (3) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 22,865-7-6 being the value of gunny cloth and iron hoops. It was contended before the Tribunals that the contracts entered into between the petitioner and his constituents were works contracts and that the gunny cloth and the iron hoops became an integral part of the product entrusted to him for baling and pressing. Both the Tribunals negatived the contention and held that the petitioner is a "dealer" and that the transactions relating to gunny cloth and iron hoops were "sales" within the meaning of the Act. Learned counsel raised before us the same points, which his client unsuccessfully raised before the Tribunals. He relies strongly upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is always a sale if goods are transferred to another and paid for by him. It cannot be gainsaid that there is payment for materials, though the payment is not made separately but as part of a larger amount. That building materials are goods is clear from Deputy Federal Commis- sioner of Taxation v. Stronach(3) and M.R. Hornibrook (Pty) Ltd. v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation(4) and certain other rulings in Australia. The Sales Tax (Assessment) Acts, 1930-36, lay the tax on goods manufactured or imported into Australia granting exemptions for some building materials and these cases may not be fully apposite. But there is a clear statement that building materials can be treated as 'goods' and the wide definition of that term in the Constit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of baling and pressing fibre and, in the course of the same business, he transfers property in goods worth thousands. In Krishna & Co., Ltd., Guntur v. State of Andhra(1), a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a member, considered a similar question in the context of the process of redrying of tobacco. There, the question was whether the turnover of the packing material for redrying the tobacco was liable to tax. It was argued, as it is now argued before us, that the packing material had become an integral part of the drying process and, therefore, there was no sale involved in the transactions. After considering the case law on the subject, the Division Bench observed at page 845: "It cannot be said that the packing mate....