The absence of an agreement to transfer property in goods as goods is essential to constitute a sale, as emphasized by key legal provisions and interpretations from previous judgments.

ABDUL HADI, J.

In all these four tax (revision) cases, the common question of law for decision by this Court is, whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the re-rubberising transactions of the assessee-petitioner were "sales" liable for levy of tax, and not works contract, entitled to exemption from the levy of sales tax.

2. T.C. (R) No. 967 of 1988 is with reference to the disputed turnover of Rs. 10, 38, 537 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the assessment year 1980-81. T.C. (R) No. 968 of 1988 is with reference to the disputed turnover of Rs. 5, 73, 969 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the same assessment year 1980-81. T.C. (R) No. 969 of 1988 is with reference to the disputed turnover of Rs. 11, 38, 979.22 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, for the assessment year 1981-82. T.C. (R) No. 970 of 1988 is with reference to the disputed turnover of Rs. 4, 80, 042.74 under the Central Sales Tax Act for the same assessment year 1981-82. [All the four proceedings relate to a period prior to the Constitution (Forty-sixty Amendment) Act, 1982]. On the abovesaid question, all the authorities below, viz., the assessing officer, the appellate authority and the Tribunal have concurrently held that they were "sales" chargeable to tax under the above referred to respective enactments.

3. Recently in State of Tamil Nadu v. Aparajitha Rubbers (P.) Ltd. [Reported in 1991 (82) STC 74 supra] (Tax Case Nos. 950 to 952 of 1987) (hereinafter referred to as "Aparajitha's case") by judgment dated August 8, 1990, we have held that the transactions of rubber lining done by the assessee therein on the customers' industrial equipments were not "sales", but only works contract, not eligible to sales tax. There, as in the present case, the Revenue relied on the decision of this Court reported as State of Tamil Nadu v. Dunlop India Limited 1981 (48) STC 521for contending that the abovesaid transactions of rubber lining amounted only to sales and not works contracts. But, we, after considering several other decisions, distinguished the facts in the above referred to 1981 (48) STC 521 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Dunlop India Limited), from the facts which were before us in the said case and held that the case before us was one of works contract only and not "sales". There, we also pointed out how the above referred to 1981 (48) STC 521 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Dunlop India Limited) turned very much on its own facts, which were not present in the abovesaid Aparajitha's case 1991 (82) STC 74 (Mad.)

4. Mr. A. Devanathan, learned counsel for the assessee in the present case, urges that the facts in the present cases also are quite similar to that of the above referred to Aparajitha's case 1991 (82) STC 74 (Mad.) and that the ratio laid down therein in our above referred to earlier judgment would squarely apply to the present cases also. So, it is only to be seen whether the facts in our earlier judgment and the present cases are similar and whether the above referred to 1981 (48) STC 521 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Dunlop India Limited) is not applicable in the present cases also.

5. In our above referred to earlier judgment, the disputed facts were as follows :

The assessee undertook rubber lining on the customers' industrial equipments to protect them from corrosion. As soon as the enquiry is received from the customers, the assessee discusses with the customers regarding the type of corrosive substance which the equipment is going to be put use of and the type of rubber lining to be given is agreed. For each category of job, the rubber lining to be given is different. On receiving the equipments, the rubber lining is blended, compounded and prepared, only after the order is received. The raw rubber is suitably blended with rubber chemicals in the rolling mixing mill to prepare appropriate lining sheets. Simultaneously the customers' equipments' surface is treated first b