Ram Singh & Sons Eng. Works versus Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.

Contract of sale and contract for work and labour, distinction and test a/Whether a contract for fabrication and erection of 3-motion electrical overhead (travelling cranes) is a contract of sale or contract for work and labour.

¶13

The appellant <issessee was a p<i!rtnership firm carrying on business inter alia of manufacture and erection of cranes. During the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee entered into two contracts for supply and erection of 3-motion electrical overhead travelling cranes. The assessee carried out both the contracts and fabricated and erected 3-motion electrical overhead travelling cranes according to the contract specifications. A question arose in the assessment of the assessee to sa•les tax for the assessment year 1965-66 whether the an1ount of Rs. 1,34,500/- received by the assessee under the contract with M/s. Kamlapati Motilal Sugar Mills and the amount of Rs. 2,38,000/ • received under the contract \Vith M/s. Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd., formed part of the turnover of the a.ssessee and was liable to sales tax. The Sales Tax Officer took the view th3.t the contracts were essentially contracts of sale of ready made cranes and the erection of the era nes at the factory site was merely incidental to the sales Md the amounts of Rs. 1,34,500/- and Rs. 2,38,000/- received under the contracts were, therefore taxable. This view was upheld by the Assistant Commissioner in appeal, but in revision the Additional Judge (Revisions) held that each of the two contracts was a works contract not involving any sale of goods and hence the amounts were not exigible to sales tax. On a reference to the l-Iigh Court at the instance of the Cornntissioner of Sales Tax, the High Court took the view that each of the two contracts was for supply of 3-motion electrical overhead travelling cranes as a complete unit acd "the predominant object was supply <;f crane as complete unit" and "the bestowing of labour and skill in the execution of the contract" appeared to have been incidental to the supply of the machine." The High Court observed that in its view parties "intended the property to pat1s in the subject matter of the contract, namely, the completed crane as movable property" and concluded that it was a contract of sale of goods and not a contract for work and labour. The High Court accordingly answered both the questions referred to it against the assessee a·nd in favour of the Revenue.

¶14

B

C

D

E

F

G

Allowing the appeal by special leave the Court,

¶21

HELD : 1. The primary test to find out whether a contract is a contract of sale or a contract for work and labour is ·whether the contract is one whose ma.in object is transfer of property in a chattel as a chattel to the buyer, thougb some \'Ork may be requ'ired to be done under the contract as ancillary or incidental to the sale or it is carrying out of work by bestowal of labour and service and materials are used in execution of such work. The Court's have evolved some subsidiary tests to resolve the difficulty arising in the applicooon of this prim3ry test ~ there are a large number of cases which are on the

¶22

[1979] 2 s.c.R.

¶23

622

¶24

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶25

r ' .

¶26

A border line and fall within what may be called "grey area". One such test formulated by the Supreme Court in Con1missioncr of Sales Tax, A1adhya Pradesh v. Purshottam Pnemji, 26 STC 38 is :

¶27

"The primary difference between a contract for work or service and a con~ tract for sale of goods is that in the former there is in the person performing work or rendering service no property in the thing produced as a whole ..... . In the case of a contract for sale, the thing produced as ai whole bas individual B existence as the sole property of the party who produced it (at some time before delivery, and the property therein passes only under the contract relating thereto to the other party for price." [628 C-G]

¶28

Com1nissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Purshottani Pren1ji, 26 STC 38; State of Rajasthan v. Man industrial Corporation 24 STC 349; Sentinel Rolling Shutters & Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, .f.,faharashtra, [1979] I SCR 644; applied.

¶29

c

¶30

Each of the two contracts for fabrication and erection of a 3-motion electrical overhead tr.welling crane is not a contract for sale but a contract for work and labour, (a) It is essentially a transaction for fabricating component parts and putting them together and erecting them at the site. so as to constitute a 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane. The transaction is no different than one for fabrication and erection of an open godown or shed with asbestos ll or tin sheets fixed on columns, (b) It is not as if a 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane is fabricated by the manufacturer and then sold and delivered to the customer as a chattel, (c) The fabrication and erection of a 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane is a highly skilled and specialised job and the component parts have to be taken to the site and they are assembled and erected there and it is only when this process is· complete, then a 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane comes into being. The process of assembling E and erection requires a high degree of skill and it is not possible to say that the erection of a 3-motion electrical overhead travelling cra'lle at the site is merely incidental to its manufacture and supply. The fabrication and erection is one single indivisible process and a 3-rnotion electrical overhead travelling crane comes into existence only when the erection is complete. The erection is thus a fundamenfa.l and integral part of the contract, because without it the 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane does not come into being. The F manufacturer would undoubtedly be the owner of the component parts wherl he fabricated them but at no stage does he become the owner of 3-motion, electrical overhead travelling crane as a unit so 36 to transfer the property in it to the customer. The 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane comes into existence only when the component parts are fixed in position and erected at the site, but at that stage it becomes the property of the customer because it is permanently embedded in the land belonging to the customer. The result is that as soon as 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane comes into being, it is the property of the customer and there is, therefore, no transfer of property in it by the manufacturer to the customer as a chattel. [630 C-D, 631 E-H632 Al

..

•

.

.5enfinel Rolling Shutters & Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mqharashtra. [1979] I SCR page 644 : followed.

¶35

H

¶36

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1314 of 1975.

¶37

Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 29-1-1975 of the Allahabad High Court in S.T.R. No. 771of1972.

¶38

RAM SINGH v. C.S.T. (Bhagwati, !.)

¶39

623

¶40

S. C. Manchanda, Mrs. Urmila Kapoor and Miss Kamlesh Bansal fot the Appellant.

¶41

A

¶42

G. N. Dikshit and .0. P. Rana for the Respondent.

¶43

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶44

BHAGWATI, J. The short question that arises for determination in this appeal by special leave is whether a contract for fabrication and erection of a 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane is a contract of sale or a contract for work and labour. The question is fortunately not beset with much difficulty since there is a recent decision of this Court in Sentinel Rolling Shutters & Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra (') which affords considerable guidance and almost concludes the determination of the question in favour of the assessee,

¶45

B

¶46

c

¶47

	The assessee, whoisthe appellant before us,isa partnershipfirm carryingonthe business_interalia_ofmanufacturing and erectionof cranes. During the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee entered into twocontracts for supply and erectionof3-motion electrical overhead travelling cranes, one withM/s Kamlapat Moti Lal Sugar Mills and the other withM/s Upper Doab SugarMillsLtd. The contract withM/sKamlapat Moti Lal SugarMillsprovided for supply and erectionofone3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane at the price ofRs.1,34,500/- and on the terms and conditions set out in a letter addressed byM/s Kamlapat Moti Lal Sugar Mills to be assessee :	D E
f	"Weconfirm allthespecifications giveninyour above referred quotation with the following changes : 1.Structural capacitywillbe suitable for safeloadoftwo unloading crabs, i.e. 10 tons.	F
	2.Spanofthe long gantry whichisgiven50' will be con- firmedshortly.
	3.Your supplywillalso include gantry of 35' x 50' to make the crane three-motions .	G
••	4. We shall not be required togiveany material except electric line up to the crane.
	5.Youwillbe supplying crane-drivers cabinwithauto' matic control panel free provided its trial is successful. (!)[1979]I S.C.R P.644	II

¶48

(1979] 2 s.c.R.

¶49

624

¶50

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶51

A

¶52

The minimum number of operations will be 30 per hour approx.

¶53

You will give us working trial of the equipment at least by 30th September, 1965.

¶54

B

¶55

The price of the above equipment will be Rs.l,34,500/f.o.r. Khatauli, sales tax, excise duty will be extra, if payable. This price includes erection charges.

¶56

Terms of payment

¶57

40% advance with the order

¶58

c

¶59

10% after one month from the date of the order

¶60

25 % after the erection of bridge and columns

¶61

15% after trial

¶62

10%after one month's satisfactory performance.

¶63

D

¶64

A penalty of 1 /2 % will be payable per week by you in case of delay per week after 30th September, 1965, and to a maximum of 5 % of the total value. You will send your staff for erecting the unloader and we shall be providing you necessary tools and tackles and welding set when required. E Available accommodation will also be provided."

¶65

The contract between Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. was for supply and erection of two 3-motiou electrical overhead travelling cranes with two crabs each at the price of Rs. 1,19,000/- for each crane and it was on the following terms and conditions :

¶66

F

¶67

"That the contractor will supply the company two cranes with two crabs each as under :-

¶68

(i) Crane bridge : The structural design of the crane bridge will be in accordance with the structural speci-

¶69

G fications of B.S.S. 466 for electric overhead travelling crane. The structural parts will be fabricated from good quality Tata tested steel sections. The girders for the main bridge will be of lattice construction type heavy duty.

¶70

(ii) Drivers cabin : The driver's cabin will be of weather proof outdoor construction. It will be with material in a position that the operator's view is not obstructed

H

I

·•

RAM SINGH v. C.S.T. (Bhagwati, J.) 625

¶75

A

¶76

during the load handling andwilltravel along with the crane crab. (iii)Electrical equipmentfordriver's cabin : The driver's cabinwillbe provided with thefollowingeltctrical equipment and other necessaryfittings:- 1.One protective panerforelectncal equipment. 2. Drum controllers forallthe motors. 3.Plug and sockets for hand lamp.	A B
4.One electric light point. 5.One alarm bell andallother necessaryfittings. Steps ladderswillbe provided from the crane bridge for easy llccessto the cabins. (iv) Wiring: Wiring with V.I.R. Wrain steel conduit pipes willbe provided between individual motors and con- trollers, current collectors and resistances in the cabin. Forconnectionofcurrent to the trolley, a set of bars copper conductors complete with insulators and strainers mounted on the bridgewillbe provided. A set of current collectorswillbe mountedonthe trolley, con- taining renewable graphitic carbon collectors.	c D E
_PRICE:_Thatfortwocomplete cranesofthe above mentioned specifications with two crabs each including erection, the companywill pay to the contractor at the rate of Rs.l,19,000/- per crane with two crabs each including erection complete inallrespects with necessary equipment.	F
( ModeofPayment: 1.30% with the order
2. 20% after two monthsofthe actual commencement of work 3.25% after the completionoferectionofcolumns and bridge. 4.15% after completion and giving satisfactory trials . 5.10% after one month's satisfactory work.	G
That the contractorwillexecute the entire work i.e. fabrication, erection and construction latest by 30th day of September, 1964 so that the trials can begin on the 1st October, 1964. The defectswillbe	H

•

•

[1979] 2 s.c.R.

626

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶82

1

¶83

A rectified by the 10th October, 1964. If the. work is not completed by the 30th September, 1964, a penalty of Rs. 400/- per day from the lit October, 1964 will be paid by the contractor to the company till the date of completion and satisfactory operation of the cranes.

¶84

That all such items which are considered defective by the company B will be replaced at the contractor's cost within the above specified date to the company's entire satisfaction so that regular working of the cranes is ensured.

¶85

That all materials will be provided by the contractor and electricity will be charged at cost if consumed by the contractor. Only such c tools which are available in the stores of the Co., will be given to the contractor on loan on retnrnable basis and the contractor will pay to the company the cost of such material which are not returned to the company. The final payment of the bills of the contractor will be made on his getting NOTHING DUE clearance certificate from the Stores D Department of the Company.

¶86

D

¶87

That there will be no liability and responsibility of the company whatsoever besides payment of price of the cranes.

¶88

That sales tax or excise duty and other government duty, if any, E will be extra. . Packing and forwarding charges will also be extra."

¶89

The assessee carried out both these contracts and fabricated and erected one 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane at the factory y- of M/s K'amlapati Moti Lal Sugar Mills and two 3-motion electrical overhead travelling cranes at the factory of M/s Upper Doab Sugar F Mills Ltd. according to the contracts specifications.

¶90

The question arose in the assessment of the assessee to sales tax for the assessment year 1965-66 whether the amount of Rs. 1,34,500/- received by the assessee under the contract with MI s Kamlapati Moti Lal Sugar Mills and the amowJt of Rs. 2,38,000/- received under the G contract with M/s Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. formed part of the turnover of the assessee and liable to sales tax. The answer to this question depended upon whether the contracts with Ml s Kamlapati Moti Lal Sugar Mills and M/s Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. were contracts of sale or contracts for work and labour. If they were H contracts of sale, the amounts of Rs.1,34,500/- and Rs. 2,38,000/would be taxable as sale price forming part of the turnover, but not so, if they were contracts for work and labour. The Sales Tax Officer

¶91

•

¶92

RAM SINGH v. C.S.T. (Bhagwati, !.)

¶93

627

¶94

c

¶95

took the view that the contracts were essentially contracts of sale of ready made cranes and the erection of the cranes at the factory site was merely incidental to the sale and the amounts of Rs.1,34,500/and Rs. 2,38,000/- received under the contracts were, therefore, taxable. This view was upheld by the Assistant Commissioner in appeal, but on an application for revision being filed by the assessee, the Additional Judge (Revisions) held that each of the two contracts was a works contract not involving any sale of goods and hence the amounts of Rs. 1,34,500/- and Rs. 2,38,000/- were not exigible to sales tax. The Commissioner of Sales Tax thereupon applied for a reference and on his application, the following two questions of law were referred for the opinion of the High Court :

¶96

A

¶97

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the turnover of Rs. 1,34,500 /- made by the assessee in respect of Kamlapati Motilal Sugar Mills amounts to a works contract or sale of goods? If so, to what extent?

¶98

•

¶99

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the turnover of Rs. 2,38.000 made by the assessee in respect of the Upper Doab Sugar Mills amount to a works contract or sale of goods? If so, to what extent?

¶100

The High Court took the view that each of the two contracts was for supply of 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane as a complete unit and "the predominent object was supply of crane as a complete unit" and "the bestowing of labour and skill in the execution of the contract" appeared "to have been incidental to the Supply of the machine". The High Court obsereved that in its view the parties "intended the property to pass in the subject matter of the contract, namely. the completed crane as movable property" and concluded that it was a contract of sale of goods and not a contract for work · and labour. The High Court accordingly answered both the questions referred to it in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The assessee thereupon brought the present appeal with specia) leave obtained from this Court.

¶101

Now, the distinction between a contract of sale and a contract for work and labour has been pointed out in Halsbury's Laws of England, 3 ed., volume 34, para 3 at page 6 in the following words :

¶102

"A contract of sale is a contract whose main object is the transfer of the property in, and the delivery of the possession of, a chattel as a chattel to the buyer. Where the main

D

E

F

G

H

[1979] 2 S.~.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

628

-· -

A

A object of work undertaken by the payee of the price is not the transfer of a chattel qua chattel. the contract is one for work and labour. The test is whether or not the work and labour bestowed and in anything that can properly become the subject of sale; neither the ownership of the materials, nor the value of the skill and labour as compared with the B value of the materials, is conclusive, although such matters may be taken into consideration in determinating, in the circumstances of a particular case, whether the contract is in substance one for work and labour or one for the sale of a chattel."

¶114

c

¶115

The primary test is whether the contract is one whose main object is transfer of property in a chattel as a chattel to the buyer, though some work may be required to be done under the contract as ancillary or incidental to the sale or it is carrying out of work by bestowal of labour and service and materials are used in execution of such work. D This test has been recognised and approved in a number of decisions of this Court and it may now be regarded as beyond controversy, but the real difficulty arises in its application as there are a large number of cases which are on the border line and fall within what may be called grey area. To resolve this difficulty, the courts have evolved some subsidiary tests and one of such tests is that formulated by this E Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Purshottam Premji(I) where it has been said :

¶116

The primary dillerence between a contract for work or service and a contract for sale of goods is that in the former there is in the person performing work or rendering service no property in the thing produced as a whole. . . In the case of a contract for sale, the thing produced as a whole has individual existence as the sole property of the party who produced it. at some time before delivery, and the property therein passes only under the contract relating thereto to the other party for price."

¶117

G

¶118

This was the test applied by this Court iu the State of Rajasthan v. Man Industrial Corporation (') for holding that a contract for providing and fixing four different types of windows of certain sizes according to "specifications, designs, drawings and instructions" set out in the contract was a contract for work and labour and not a contract for H sale. Shah, J., speaking on behalf of the Court, analysed the nature (I) 26 S.T.C. 38

¶119

(2) 24 S.T.C. 349

¶120

RAM SINGH v. C.S.T. (Bhagwati, !.)

629

A

. '

y

r

•

of the contract and pointed ont that "The window-leaves did not pass to the Union of India nnder the terms of the contract as window-leaves. Only on the fixing of the windows as stipulated, the contract could be fully executed and the property in the windows passed on the completion of the work and not before''. The contract was not for transfer of property in the window leaves as window leaves. It was a contract for providing and fixing windows and windows could come into existence only when the window-leaves were fixea to the building by bestowing labour and skill and it was for this reason that it was held to be a works contract.

¶128

The same test reasoning was applied by this Court in Sentinel Rolling Shutters & Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tqx. Maharashtra (supra). There the question was whether a contract for fabrication, supply and erection of certain types of rolling shutters was a contract of sale or a contract for work and labour. This Court analysed the nature of the contract and pointed out that "not only are the Rolling Shutters to be manufactured according to the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions provided in the contract, but tl1ey are u.lso to be erected and installed at the premises of the company. The price stipulated in the contract is inclusive of erection and installation charges and the contract does not recognise any dichotomy between fabrication and supply of the Ro1J4ig Shutters and their erection and installation so far as the price is concerned. The erection and installation of the Rolling Shutters is as much an essential part of the contract as the fabrication and supply and it is only on the erection and installation of the Rolling Shutters that the contract would be fully executed." 'This Court then proceeded to examine what is a rolling shutter and how it is erected and installed in the premises and observed that a rolling shutter consists of several component parts and 'the component parts do not cons!itute a rolling shutter until they are fixed and erected on th~ premises. It is only when the component parts are fixed on the premises and fitted into one another that they constitute a rolling shutter as a commercial article and till then they are merely component parts and cannot be said to consitute a rolling shutter. The erection and installation of the rolling shutter cannot, therefore, be said to be incidental to its manufacture and supply. It is a fundamental and integral part of the contract, because without it the rollini; shutter does not come into being. The manufacturer would un<!oubtedly be the owner of the component parts when he fabricates them. but at no stage does he become the owner of the rolling shutter as a unit so as to transfer the property in it to the customer. The rolling shutter comes into existence as a unit when the component• 2-40SCI/79

B

C

D

F

G

"

630

[ 1979] 2 s.c.R.

sunEME COURT REPORTS

..

A

parts are fixed in position on the premises and it, therefore, becomes the property of the customer as soon as it comes into being. There 1s no transfer of property in the rolling shutter by the manufacturer to the custpmer as a chattel. It is essentially a transection for fabricating component parts and fixing them on the premises so as to constitute a rolLng shutter." The contract for fabrication, supply and erection of B the rolling shutters was, on this reasoning, held by the Court to be a contract for work and labour and not a contract for sale.

¶141

If we consider what is a 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane and how it is fabricated, erected and j.nstalled, it will become c ilnmediately clear that the analogy of the decision in Sentinel Rolling Shutters & Engineering Co. (P) Ltd.'s case (supra) to the present case is striking and it must lead us to the conclusion that each of the two contracts with which we are concerned here is not a ~ontract for sale but a contract for work and labour. The publication of the Indian Standards, Institution which lays down the Code of Practice for Design D of Overhead Travelling Crane_s_ and Gantry Cranes clearly shows that a 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane consists of 44 main component parts and it is only when they are put together and assembled at the site that they assume the shape of a crane. It is not as . if a 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane is fabricated by the manufacturer and then sold and delivered to the customer as a chattel. One E singic 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane covers an area of 10,549 Square Feat at the site. When an order for fabrication and erection of 3-month electrical overhead travelling crane is received by the manufacturer from the customer alongwith the specific'11'ions of the size and the materials, the manufacturer design; the machine according to the specifications and prepares the necessary drawings for its F fabrication and manufacture and two copies of the drawings are sent to the customer for preparing the foundation at the site for erection of the columns which are ten in number along with four supporting columns. Each column has to be placed on a grouted foundation which is 7 feet deep and is securely bolted with foundation bolts, 5 on each side, G which arc grouted so as to be able to support the weight of the columns. The columns thus become permanent fixtures on the land of the customer and they constitute a permanent foundation for the 3-motion ckctrical overhead travelling crane. The detailed specifications of the 0 foundatiQn bolts and the columns are given in the publication of the Indian Standards Institution. It may be noted that evt'n su far as the II columns are concerned, they are not fabricatetd by the manufacturer in his factory and then taken to the site. Each column has a height of about 40 feet and it is made in three or four pieces and these pieces

II

•

•

RAM SINGH v. C.S.T. (Bhagwati, !.)

631

..

• "

•

'l

<ire joined together with bolts and welded at the time of erection at the site. Thereafter a 120 feet long gantry is assembled by tl;e manufacturer in eight pieces and each piece is placed on two colunrns and the erection of the gantry on both sides i~ completed after bolting and wciding the gantry with the columns. Then about 60 pieces are fixed <Jn to the gantry on both sides to form a platform to facilitate the <iperation and maintenance of the crane and the component parts of the railings are assembled at the site with bolts and welded to, the gantry. Two distance pieces assembled out of diverse component parts are then fixed between both ends of the gantry to ensure stability. The manufacturer has to examine and ensure the levelling and alignment of the gantry and then the component parts of the rails are [1ssembled and fixed on hoth sides of the gantry by means of M.S. cleats and bolts. The bridge which is fabricated out of numerous component parts at the site, is then put on the rails so that it can run on the gantry and travel .about 180 feet from one end of the gantry to another. Then rails are fixed on the bridge and the trolley is uut or, the rails. The trolley .consists of several component parts which are b10ught and assembled .at the site. There is also a platform erected on the bridge for maintenance of the bridge and trolley and lastly, tli~re is a lifting wab which is made of 36 pieces assembled at the site and this grab is iitted on to th<: trolley. It would thus be seen that the fabrication and erection of a 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane is a highly skilled and specialised job and the component parts have to be taken to the site and they are assembled and erected there and it is only when this process is complete then a 3-motion electrical overhead travelling .crane comes into being. The process of assembling and erection, requires a high degree of skill and it is not possible to say that the erection of .a 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane at the site is merely incidental to its manufacture and supply. The fabrication and erection is one single indivisible process and a 3-motion electrical overhead travelling· crane comes into existence only when the erection is complete. The erection is thus a fundamental and integral part of the contract, because without it the 3-motion electrical ·overhead travelling crane does not come into being. The manufacturer would undoubtedly be the owner of the cornp011ent part; when be fabricated them but at no stage does he become the c,wner of the 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crone as a unit so as to transfer the property in it to the customer. The 3-motion electrical overhead travelling crane comes into existence as a unit only when the component parts are fixed in position and erected at the site, but at that stage it becomes the property of the customer because it is permanently embedded in the land belonging to the customer. The result is that as

A

B

CJ

D

E

F

G

H

(1979] 2 s.c.R.

SUPR.EMB COURT RBPORTS

¶162

632

¶163

; A soon as 3·motion electrical overhead travelling crane comes into being it is the property of the customer and there is, therefore, no transfer of property in it by the manufacturer to the customer as a chattel. It is essentially a transaction for fabricating component parts and putting them together and erecting them at the site so as to constitute a 3- motion electrical overhead travelling crane. The transaction is no B different than one for fabrication and ereztion of an open godcwn or shed with asbestos or tin sheets fixed on columns. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the contract in the present case was a contract for work and labour and not a contract for sale. This view which we are taking is completely supported by the decision of this Court in the Sentinel Rolling Shutters & Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner c of Sales Tax, Maharashtra (supra). We accordingly alloaj the appeal, set aside the judgment of the· High Court and hold that the contract in the present case was a cont~act for work and labour and not a contract for sale and comformably with this view, we answer the question referred by the Sales Tax 'fri- D bm1al in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The State· will pay the costs of the assessee throughout.

V.D.K.

Appeal allowed-

./ '

•

..

Ram Singh & Sons Eng. Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh & Sons Eng. Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala versus M/S. Groz Backert Saboo Ltd.

Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. versus the Sales Tax Officer & Regional Transport Officer, Poona and Anr.

Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Delhi, New Delhi versus Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., Hathras Distt., Aligarh

M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. .

Gestetner Duplicators (Pvt.) Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal

Income Tax Officer & Ors. versus M/S. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd., Calcutta