VEERASWAMI, J.

In these tax cases filed by the assessee and relating to assessment years 1955-56 to 1956-58, the substantial question is whether the view of the Tribunal, agreeing with the department, that the supply by it of bus-bodies constructed and fitted on to chassis provided by customers amounted to sale of specific chattels as distinct units chargeable to sales tax, is correct. The turnover under this head was in the first instance, on the claim of the assessee, excluded from charge on the ground that it consisted of works contract. This was, however, included in the taxable turnover and the assessment to that extent was enhanced in disposing of an appeal filed by the assessee disputing the chargeability of certain other parts of the turnover which is not in question now. The second ground in these cases is that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, in enhancing the assessment, as aforesaid, acted in excess of his jurisdiction in the assessee's appeals confined to parts of the turnover which, according to it, had been wrongly brought to tax by the assessing authority. A further ground is also urged that the assessment of the enhanced turnover was barred by limitation and the Tribunal's view to the contrary is not correct.

The finding of the Tribunal on the first ground has been recorded in these words :

"On an overall consideration of the entire material before us, we are inclined to hold that the predominating element in the transactions was the sale of built body, that the work and labour were only subsidiary, that it was immaterial whether a body was prepared in accordance with the specifications given by the customer, then and there and fitted on to the chassis or the body had been already prepared prior to the order and was readily fitted with the chassis, that the sale of the property was the predominating element, that the use of labour and skill was only incidental and that, therefore, the element of sale predominated over the element of contract of work and labour." *

The phraseology so used by the Tribunal is not accurate and reveals an approach not altogether apposite to the facts. Nevertheless, its conclusion that the transactions were sales of goods appears, in our opinion, to be correct. No contracts or agreements, as such, were produced by the assessee and the nature of the transactions relating to supply of bus-bodies has to be fixed on the basis of certain typical filled in forms of "Repair Order". The assessee is described as "T. V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Private Ltd., Madurai." The date of order, name and address of the customer, the make, model and condition of the chassis supplied by the customer and certain other details are to be found in the "Repair Order Form". Four other columns therein are found, the first of which is under the head "date of entering the job" and the entry thereunder is "no tools", the second column is "description" under which is stated

"to construct and mount one semi-saloon mofussil type bus-body, with 7 plywood for the floor, ayni wood for sides and frames"for which in column 4, namely," amount billed to customer" *

a sum of Rs. 9, 000 is shown and further under the head "description" is set out

"aluminium sheets and aluminium beadings for panels, rubber cushion for seats, rubber squab for back all covered with green leather cloth with seating capacity 51 in all, 4 seats extra" *

for all of which a total sum of Rs. 450 is charged under column 4. The height and width of the bus-body are given. The "Filled in Form" permits the assessee to drill holes in the chassis. Several specific items found in the "Repair Order" are to provide windshield glass, rubber squabs, N/P handles for entrances, helper canvass electric buzzer (Rs. 5), invoice lamp and 4 roof lamps (all for Rs. 7-8-0). A sum of Rs. 9, 636 is shown as the total amount billed to the customer. Certain specific named items listed thereafter in the bill, like leather cloth protective flaps f