TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (7) TMI 113
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the years in question. It is the common case that the petitioners entered into contracts for the supply of motor vehicles fitted with bodies with the Kerala State Electricity Board and some other customers in the State in these years. The main contention of the petitioners which is common in all these cases is that the contracts with the Kerala State Electricity Board and the other customers were only for the sale of Dodge chassis and bodies were fitted up on the chassis by Messrs. Simpson and Co., Madras, and Sree Rama Vilas Motor Service (Private) Ltd., arranged by the petitioners on behalf of the several purchasers at their request. The plea of the petitioners is that the contracts for the construction of bodies on Dodge chassis are no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lectricity Department or whether the sale is of the entire vehicles inclusive of the body or in other words whether the sales were of body-built chassis." It is agreed that the above statement embodies correctly the contentions raised by the petitioners. The assessing authorities as well as the Tribunal found that the contracts between the petitioners and the Kerala State Electricity Board and the other customers were not for sales of mere chassis alone but for vehicles, that is chassis fitted up with bodies of the types specifically mentioned by the purchasers. 4.. In T.R.C. No. 14 of 1966 the dispute relates to 18 vehicles of which 11 were supplied to the Kerala State Electricity Board while the remaining 7 were supplied to the other c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioners has also filed the documents before us to prove the nature of the transactions involved in T.R.C. Nos. 20 and 21 of 1966. The Appellate Tribunal has not entered any independent finding regarding the nature of the transaction which are the subject-matter of these revision cases. We accept the contention on behalf of the revision petitioner that the concession made before the Appellate Tribunal was only in respect of the transactions involed in T.R.C. No. 14 of 1966 and does not extend to the other two cases. If so, the Appellate Tribunal should be directed to dispose of Tribunal Appeals Nos. 663 and 664 of 1963 afresh. 5.. T.R.C. No. 14 of 1966 has to be disposed of on the merits. As already stated the main contention of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entioned therein. An agreement was executed between the parties on 10th January, 1959, which evidences the contract for the supply of the disputed items. The earnest money paid by the petitioners for the due fulfilment of the contract was with reference to the total value of the vehicle that is chassis with the body constructed. The letter of acceptance shows that the vehicles are to be delivered in place in Kerala State. The contention that the property in the chassis passed to the Kerala Electricity Board at Bombay is without any substance at all. This argument of the petitioner's counsel was found upon the price of the chassis ex-plant Bombay given in the quotation. But this is only one of the items in the price quoted by the petitioners....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Electricity Board. Along with the tender 1 per cent. of the total value of the chassis with body was given by the petitioners. The security furnished for the fulfilment of the contract was also on the total value of the contract. From the copies of the bills furnished it is seen that in some cases separate invoices for the construction of the body are given. But in some other cases joint invoices are given. The fact that two separate invoices were given cannot be of much use in this case as the other documents establish beyond any doubt that the contract between the parties is for sale of chassis fitted up with bodies. The contract between the parties shows that it is with reference to a single item, i. e., chassis with the body fitted up....