Judgement

KHANNA, J. :- Wheather the supply for consideration by an assessee of bus bodies constructed and fitted to chassis provided by the customers amounts to sale chargeable to sales tax is the short question which arises for determination in these five civil appeals Nos. 2229, 2230 and 2231 of 1969 and 290 and 291 of 1970. Appeals Nos. 2229, 2230 and 2231 of 1969 have been filed on certificate by T. V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Madurai against the judgment of the Madras High Court. The order two appeals have been filed on certificate by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Mysore against the judgment of the Mysore High Court. This judgment would dispose of all the five appeals.

2. The matter relates in the three appeals against the judgment of the Madras High Court to assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal held that the appellant company was liable to pay sales tax under the madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 in respect of bus bodies constructed and fitted by it to chassis provided by the customers. On the matter having been taken up in revision by the appellant company to the High Court, the High Court referred to the fact that no contracts or agreements as such were produced by the appellant company. It was observed that the nature of the transactions relating to the supply of bus bodies had to be determined on the basis of forms of "repair orders" which the appellant company used to get filled in by its customers. On the basis of the material on record, the High Court agreed with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. The matter was, however, remanded to the Tribunal to enable the appellant company to produce the actual agreements, if any, between the appellant company and its customers. the High Court in this context observed as under :

"As the evidence stands, we accept the conclusion rightly arrived at by the Tribunal on this question. It is not clear whether there were actually contracts entered into by the assessee with the customers and if they were so, why they were not produced. Anyway, in the interests of justice we are inclined to think that the question may be re-examined by the Tribunal if the contracts are filed before it. If none is filed, the view that the transactions are sales of goods will stand."

3. Mr. Swaminathan who appears for the assessees in all the five appeals submits that after the remand order of the High Court, no agreements between the appellant company and its customers were filed by the appellant company before the Tribunal and, as such, the Tribunal reiterated the liability of the appellant company for the payment of sales tax in respect of the above item. Although revision petition has been filed by the appellant company against the order of the Tribunal after the remand to the High Court, the real grievance of the appellant company, according to Mr. Swaminathan, is against the judgment of the High Court appealed against as the question of the liability of the appellant company to pay sales tax in the absence of a formal agreement has been determined by this judgment.

4. We may set out the mode of dealings between the appellant company and its customers in the three appeals mentioned above. As stated already, no formal agreements were produced by the assessee and the nature of transactions relating to the supply of bus bodies has been found on the basis of "repair orders". The repair order to take a typical case, besides containing the name of the appellant company, gives the date of the order, name and adress of the customer, the make, model and condition of chassis supplied by the customer. Apart from other details, the repair order contains column, according to which the assessee-appellant undertook "to construct and mount one semi-saloon mofussil type bus body, with 7 plywood for the floor, any wood for sides and frames". In another column dealing with amount billed to the customer a sum of Rs. 9,000 is