9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (5) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impson & Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the assessee, is a dealer in motor-cars, motor parts, and accessories and it also dealt with the sale of Perkins Diesel Engines. For the assessment year 1950-51, the assessee was assessed to sales tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on a taxable turnover of Rs. 10,55,070-4-0 representing 70 per cent. of the value of the said diesel engines supplied and fitted to the chassis of the customers' vehicles. For the assessment year 1954-55, the disputed turnover in respect of diesel engines was Rs. 5,23,380 representing the value of the Perkins Diesel Engines. The assessee appealed to the appellate authority, Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of labour separately and what was subjected to tax was only the cost of the engines." The Tribunal referred to some typical bills for the years 1950-51 and 1954-55 and concluded that there was a sale of the engines as such, and, therefore, the benefit of the decision in Sundaram Motors v. State of Madras could not accrue to the assessee. The assessee then filed revisions under section 38 of the Madras Act I of 1959 before the High Court. The High Court partly accepted revision No. 108 of 1961 (Tax Case No. 189 of 1961) arising out of the assessment for 1950-51. The High Court observed: "In our opinion, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner that in regard to these contracts, they were not truly sales of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was contract to sell Perkins Engines and fit these on the chassis. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that it was a works contract and relies on the decisions in Sundaram Motors v. State of Madras [1958] 9 S.T.C. 687., Clark v. Bulmer [1843] 152 E.R. 793., referred to in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. [1959] S.C.R. 379 at p. 419; 9 S.T.C. 353., and the decision of this Court in the State of Gujarat v. Kailash Engineering Co. [1967] 19 S.T.C. 13. In Sundaram Motors v. State of Madras [1958] 9 S.T.C. 687., the Madras High Court took as a sample the supply and fixing of four king pin bushes which were specially fabricated by Sundaram Motors for the customer. The Court held that on the facts "it was a manufacture o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eated as an engine sold and delivered. Nor could the different parts of it which were used in the construction, and from time to time fixed to the freehold, and therefore became part of it, be deemed goods sold and delivered, for there was no contract for the sale of them as movable goods; the contract was in effect that the plaintiff was to select materials, make them into parts of an engine, carry them to a particular place, and put them together and fix part to the soil, and so convert them into a fixed engine on the land itself, so as to pump the water out of a mine.'" In our opinion, these cases are distinguishable. In the present case the assessee does not manufacture or fabricate Perkins Engines. The learned Advocate-General brought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
