TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other goods for sale or otherwise and hence section 5A(1)(a) was not attracted. 2.. We are in agreement with the decision of the Tribunal. The assessee is a contractor. The purchase of the granite in question was for erecting certain sea walls between Chalil and Gopalapetta and also for repairs to certain existing sea walls. The assessment years are 1975-76 and 1976-77. The assessing authority and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in first appeal held that the assessee had "consumed" the goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise and hence the purchases became taxable under section 5A(1)(a). Section 5A(1) reads thus: "5A. Levy of Purchase tax.-(1) Every dealer who, in the course of his business, purchases from a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure or erects a sea wall he is not manufacturing any goods. The materials used in the construction become part of immovable property. The title to the same passes to the owner of the land as an accretion thereto. Therefore and in the absence of any manufacture of goods, sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 5A is not attracted, when a contractor purchases materials and used them in constructing buildings or other structures. 4.. Counsel for the Revenue, Sri T. Karunakaran Nambiar, Special Government Pleader (Taxes), however, contended before us that the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Prasad Dixit v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh [1969] 24 STC 343 squarely applies to such cases. There, the Supreme Court was conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontended that consumption of the goods in any manner whatsoever ipso facto brought the purchase within the net of sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 5A. He pressed for acceptance of this view in preference to the interpretation placed on the words "or otherwise" in the case of Pio Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63 (SC). We may at once point out that the decision in Ganesh Prasad Dixit [1969] 24 STC 343 (SC) is not seen referred to in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63 (SC). 6.. On examining the facts of the case in Ganesh Prasad Dixit v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1969] 24 STC 343 (SC) we are unable to discern any finding in that case that the goods purchased by the contractor had been used in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dges. We are bound to follow the later decision, even assuming that there is a conflict between the two. 8.. The view taken by us on the facts of this case is in accord with the view taken by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the decision in Nandanam Construction Company v. Assistant Commissioner [1983] 53 STC 42 and by the High Court of Madras in State of Tamil Nadu v. East Coast Constructions and Industries [1986] 61 STC 337 while dealing with analogous provisions in the Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu enactments. In the first of these cases, the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the goods purchased by the contractor, namely, sand, bricks and the like used in the construction of flats, were not consumed in the manufacture of other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
