TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor nor would it be permissible to view the subcontracting as involving a re-transfer - the property in such contract passes by accretion. The Court is of the considered view that once the transaction had been taxed in the hands of the sub-contractors, no subsequent transfer of property in goods occurred so as to warrant the Department taking the position that there was a subsequent sale - revision dismissed. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 87 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 3-10-2017 - Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J. For the Applicant : Bipin Kumar Pandey,S.C. For the Opposite Party : Sanyukta Singh,Shubham Agrawal ORDER Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Bharat Ji A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s tax on the relevant transactions in accordance with the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Act [ the Act ]. The stand of the revisionist is that since the entire consideration was received by the assessee who had also issued the relevant Form-C, it would be liable to tax in accordance with the provisions of the proviso to Section 9 of the Act. Sri Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel appearing in support of the revision has taken the Court through the findings recorded by the Assessing Authority in which it has been held that the entire consideration of the contract was received by the assessee. The Assessing Authority has also based his conclusions on the fact that the Form-C in respect of the transactions in question had a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... execution never entered the State of U.P. No sale or purchase of goods is stated to have been effected within the State of U.P. In view thereof, there is no material to hold that there was a movement of goods which commenced in the State of U.P. In view thereof, it is apparent that Section 9(1) would not apply. This however does not settle the matter against the Department. The second submission rests upon the proviso to section 9 (1). In order for the proviso to kick into play there must first come into existence a subsequent sale of goods. As would be evident from a reading of the said provision, the proviso carves out an exception to the substantive provision and brings within its ambit sales which may have occurred subsequent to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s dealt with by Section 4(7) of the said 2005 Act. In our view, Section 4(7) is a Code by itself. It begins with a non-obstante clause. It, inter alia, states that every dealer executing works contract shall pay tax on the value of goods at the time of incorporation of such goods in the works executed at the rates applicable to the goods under the Act. The point to be noted is that Section 4(7)(a) of the 2005 Act indicates that the taxable event is the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract and the said transfer of property in such goods takes place when the goods are incorporated in the works, the value of the goods which constitutes the measure for the levy of the tax is the value of the goods at the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the contractor which is capable of a retransfer, whether as goods or in some other form. 19. If one keeps in mind the abovequoted observation of this Court in the case of Builders' Assn. of India the position becomes clear, namely, that even if there is no privity of contract between the contractee and the sub- contractor, that would not do away the principle of transfer of property by the sub-contractor by employing the same on the property belonging to the contractee. This reasoning is based on the principle of accretion of property in goods. It is subject to the contract to the contrary. Thus, in our view, in such a case the work, executed by a sub-contractor, results in a single transaction and not as multiple transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
