9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the conclusion that:- (a) The movement of the goods transported from the outside the State to the site of execution of work by the contractor is the result of a sale or incident of a contract of sale when in fact and effect the movement of the goods is neither the result of a sale nor incident of a contract of sale. (b) A concluded sale has taken place in respect of the goods transported from outside the State when the buyers have not taken delivery of such goods brought to the site of work and whether a mere movement of the goods same as concluded sale make the transaction as one falling under Sec.3(a) of the O.S.T. Act. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case where the contract is an turnkey basis the conclusion of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luded that the contract executed by the dealer at IPITATA Bileipada is an indivisible contract and hence the transactions come under the purview of the definition of 'Sale' under Section 2(JJ) of the O.S.T. Act." It was noted by the STO that the dealer had executed the alleged work from the year 1984-85 to 1986-87 and in that view of the matter, the dealer had to be assessed as a works contractor during the year under review. 4. The Opposite Party then filed an appeal which came to be allowed in part by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (ACST), Cuttack II Range by an order dated 16th August, 1988. The said order was common to the years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The ACST came to the conclusion that the contract was a 'turnkey' one, the pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was a movement of goods from a place outside Orissa to the work site in Orissa on the strength of declaration of Form 'C'. Goods were dispatched in which the Assessee was the consigner and the contractee was the consignee and the contractee used his own goods in execution of the works contract through the Assessee who erected and commissioned equipment for the materials handling system for the contractee. 7. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Department and has examined carefully the orders of the STO, the ACST and the Tribunal. The Court is unable to find any errors having been committed by the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion as noted above. Indeed, if the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
