1961 (11) TMI 50

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....umber of passenger bogies for the railway. The underframes were to be supplied by the railway and the property in the frames was always to remain in the railway. The superstructure over these underframes was to be constructed by the petitioner. The superstructure was to be raised according to certain specifications. The work was to be completed within a certain time and it was provided in the contract which is an annexure to the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the rate at which the contractor was to be paid for the work will be Rs. 50,200 for each bogie and an additional sum of Rs. 400 for extra work. The work to be done by the petitioner was to consist of "body construction including painting etc." It was provided that "the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....contractor was not going to be paid separately for the construction work and for supply of materials. It follows that the contract between the petitioner and the railway was one indivisible contract which could not be split up into two separate contracts, one for the construction work and the other for the sale and supply of materials. For the assessment year 1955-56 under an assessment order made by the Sales Tax Officer the petitioner was assessed to a sales tax of Rs. 31,066-43 nP. on a turnover of Rs. 19,88,250-75 nP. I am informed by Shri H.N. Seth, learned counsel for the State, that this amount represents the total sum of money paid by the railway to the petitioner in respect of the work done by him at the rate of Rs. 50,200 plus ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p the material into something different, no part of the total amount paid could be held to be attributable to the sale and supply of material. In such a contract even the concept of "sale" was not involved because sale can be only of material which is supplied in the very shape or form in which the property was originally agreed to be sold to the principal. It is clear from what has been stated above that in this case there was no contract for the supply of wood or steel or electrical fittings or sanitary fittings. As such the supply, if at all, was of a completely built up coach into which the various kinds of materials had been worked up. The Supreme Court has said that under the law there can be no contract of sale relating to one kind o....