TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (10) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....works. We have no hesitation in upholding the order of the Board of Revenue. In cases like this, as has been pointed out by this Court on more occasions than one, the primary task is one of construction of the contract, as to whether the terms read as a whole disclose an intention to sell and purchase goods as such. In construing the contract, it will naturally be borne in mind how and when the property passes in the process of execution of the contract and how the risk in relation to the property is borne and by whom. The original contract is unfortunately not before us. But the learned counsel for the assessee produces a copy of a contract and says that the terms therein are similar to those in the contract has been entered into between ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn having permitted the assessee to quarry at the spot, it was explicit that the assessee was only utilised to do the work. The Board of Revenue did not accept that view and considered that it was equally explicit that the assessee on payment therefor quarried at the licensed site, collected the pebbles and delivered the same to the Corporation as pebbles and thus the transaction was a sale of goods. Before us, it has been argued for the assessee that the quarrying licence being in favour of the Corporation exclusively, the assessee acquired no property in the pebbles at any time and that the payment made to him was for quarrying, in other words, for the work and labour. The whole argument is rested on passing of property. The short answ....