TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om holding that the dominant nature test would no longer be determinative - the view taken by the High Court that there is no deemed sale of the goods used in the contract executed by the respondent-contractor cannot have our approval - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1335 OF 2018 [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.12290 OF 2017] - - - Dated:- 30-1-2018 - MR. RANJAN GOGOI AND MRS. R. BANUMATHI For The Petitioner : Mr. Preetesh Kapoor, Adv., Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, AOR, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv., Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv. And Ms. Shodhika Sharma, Adv. For The Respondent : Mr. Munjaal Bhatt, Adv., Mr. Kailash Pandey, Adv., Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Adv. And Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR OR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Constitution of India has the effect of enlarging the term goods by bringing within its fold goods in all different forms. Paragraph 56 of the opinion rendered in Larsen Toubro Limited (supra) which deals with the above issue may be conveniently extracted below: 56. It is important to ascertain the meaning of subclause (b) of clause (29-A) of Article 366 of the Constitution. As the very title of Article 366 shows, it is the definition clause. It starts by saying that in the Constitution unless the context otherwise requires the expressions defined in that article shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the article. The definition of expression tax on sale or purchase of the goods is contained in clause (29-A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsfer or property in the goods as goods or which have lost its form as goods and have acquired some other form involved in the execution of a works contract. 5. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Kone Elevator India Private Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2014) 7 SCC 1, while considering the correctness of its earlier view with regard to dominant nature of the contract test, had, apart from holding that the dominant nature test would no longer be determinative, considered paragraph 56 of the report in Larsen Toubro Limited (supra) and has accepted the same to be the correct position in law. 6. In view of the above position of law enunciated in Larsen Toubro Limited (supra) and Kone Elevator India Private Limited ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
