Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1961 (11) TMI 50

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the frames was always to remain in the railway. The superstructure over these underframes was to be constructed by the petitioner. The superstructure was to be raised according to certain specifications. The work was to be completed within a certain time and it was provided in the contract which is an annexure to the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the rate at which the contractor was to be paid for the work will be Rs. 50,200 for each bogie and an additional sum of Rs. 400 for extra work. The work to be done by the petitioner was to consist of "body construction including painting etc." It was provided that "the rate at which the petitioner was to be paid for each bogie was to be inclusive of the cost of all stores and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ws that the contract between the petitioner and the railway was one indivisible contract which could not be split up into two separate contracts, one for the construction work and the other for the sale and supply of materials. For the assessment year 1955-56 under an assessment order made by the Sales Tax Officer the petitioner was assessed to a sales tax of Rs. 31,066-43 nP. on a turnover of Rs. 19,88,250-75 nP. I am informed by Shri H.N. Seth, learned counsel for the State, that this amount represents the total sum of money paid by the railway to the petitioner in respect of the work done by him at the rate of Rs. 50,200 plus possibly Rs. 400 extra for every coach. The petitioner went up in appeal against the assessment order and the J .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e sale and supply of material. In such a contract even the concept of "sale" was not involved because sale can be only of material which is supplied in the very shape or form in which the property was originally agreed to be sold to the principal. It is clear from what has been stated above that in this case there was no contract for the supply of wood or steel or electrical fittings or sanitary fittings. As such the supply, if at all, was of a completely built up coach into which the various kinds of materials had been worked up. The Supreme Court has said that under the law there can be no contract of sale relating to one kind of property and a supply as regards another. That being one of the principles on which the Supreme Court decided .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates