1976 (7) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 070 for the year 1971-72 and Rs. 2,131 for the year 1972-73 after check of accounts. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in appeal, did not accept the contentions of the appellant and confirmed the assessments. 3. The grounds that are stated in the appeals are as follows. The appellant is a qualified motor mechanic and repairer, who undertakes to do repairs and improvements. There was no sale of spare parts by the appellant. There was only a contract for work and labour to execute repairs to the cars. The customers used to entrust with the appellant the work of purchasing the necessary spare parts at their cost for replacing the worn out parts. The various Government Departments have entered into works contracts with the appellant with d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and Government Departments used to entrust the repair work to him with the stipulation that he should hand over the original bills for the purchase of the spare parts along with his bill for working and labour charges. 7. In paragraph 7 of his order, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has observed that he verified the accounts and bills, that the assessing officer had also brought out the fact that the State and Central Reserve Police, High Ways Department, Industrial Development Corporation, etc. had given the definite instruction that spare parts, if any, to be replaced should be genuine and that all supporting bills in originals obtained from the dealers should be handed over to them. In paragraph 8, the Appellate Assistant Commission .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as well as supply of goods and, the contract must be held to fall in one class or the other, according to the predominant intention of the parties to that contract and if the predominant element is of performance of contract of work, it is a contract of work, which is exempt from assessment and if the predominant element is of contract of sale, it must be held to be a contract of sale which is assessable. In this case, even the very observations of the assessing officer and the Appellate Asst. Commissioner clearly showed that the appellant had taken only contracts of work and not of sale. There is absolutely no proof of any sale by the appellant during the years 1971-72 and 1972-73 of any spare parts. The notes of check available in the ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X