seen that the petitioner was required to supply the goods as per the supply contract; they were also required to execute the works themselves; the intention of both the contractor and the contractee was completion of the works involving supply of goods as well as labour; therefore the transaction related to a works contract; in such an event, the transfer of property in goods would take place, on the theory of accretion, when the goods are incorporated into the property of the contractee; this would happen only if the petitioner is the owner of the goods sought to be incorporated in the works; by arranging its affairs, camouflaging such deemed sale as in the nature of sales falling under Sections 3(b), 6(2) and 5(2) of the CST Act, the petitioner does not cease to be the owner of the goods sought to be incorporated in the works; unless the contractor is the owner of the goods, by the time of incorporation in a composite contract, he cannot execute such a contract; the transactions under Sections 3(b), 6(2) and 5(2) of the CST Act do not fit within the concept of a works contract; a works contract is a conglomerate of both goods and labour inseparably; splitting of the value of the goods is only artificial, and is for the purpose of levy of tax; in the present case, the petitioner themselves furnished the value of the goods separately, making it easy for the assessing authority to arrive at the taxable turnover; the intention of the parties is important in deciding the nature of the transaction, but not how the documentation is made; the intention of both the petitioner and the contractee is to execute works at Konaseema and Vemagiri respectively; in order to avoid the brunt of taxation, the petitioner had created tailor made documents in order to claim exemption under Sections 3(b), 6(2) and 5(2) of the CST Act; the sale of goods, involved in a works contract, is concluded only after the said goods are incorporated/merged/fused with the property of the contractee; the petitioner had split the contract into supply of goods, and erection and installation, only to make it tailor made to suit Sections 3(b), 6(2) and 5(2) of the CST Act, and nothing else; the transactions must, therefore, be treated as intra-state deemed sale of goods involved in a works contract; MMTC of India Ltd.2 was a case of normal sale, in the course of import, where the property was transferred chattel qua chattel; in the present case, the impugned transactions are transactions of works contract where such transfer of property takes place on the theory of
