Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2008 (2) TMI 611 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether manufacture supply and installation of lifts are to be treated as sale or works contract ? Held that - Having regard to the issues involved in these matters and apparent conflict in the views expressed by three-judge Benches of this court these matters to be refereed to Constitution Bench. Registry will take further steps to post before the Constitution Bench.
Issues:
Whether manufacture, supply, and installation of lifts are to be treated as "sale" or "works contract". Analysis: The judgment involves a crucial consideration of whether the activities related to the manufacture, supply, and installation of lifts should be categorized as a "sale" or a "works contract." The petitioners raised significant legal questions, leading to the matters being referred to a three-judge Bench for deliberation. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kone Elevators (India) Ltd., it was established that such contracts constituted a "sale" rather than a "works contract," emphasizing the minimal service element provided by the elevator vendor. However, the petitioners argued against this view, citing previous decisions like State of Rajasthan v. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd., State of Rajasthan v. Nenu Ram, and Vanguard Rolling Shutters & Steel Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., which presented a different perspective not considered in the Kone Elevators case. The counsel representing the States of Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu supported the decision in the Kone Elevators case and referenced Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh. Additionally, they contended that the petitions under article 32 were not maintainable, indicating that these arguments could be raised during the final hearing. Due to the conflicting views expressed by three-judge Benches of the court and the significance of the issues at hand, the matters were referred to a Constitution Bench for further examination and resolution. The Registry was instructed to proceed with the necessary steps to present the cases before the Constitution Bench for a comprehensive review and decision.
|