High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K S RAMAMURTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMAKRISHNAN
Richardson and Cruddas Limited - Appellant
Versus
State of Madras - Respondent
Case No : No
Decided On : 28 July 1964
WORKS CONTRACT - DISTINCTION FROM SALE OF GOODS - TESTS - FABRICATION AND ERECTION OF STEEL STRUCTURES - WHETHER WORKS CONTRACT OR SALE OF GOODS - PROPERTY IN MATERIALS - PASSING OF PROPERTY - INTENTION OF PARTIES - PAYMENT OF LUMP SUM - EFFECT - RECEIPTS FOR PART PAYMENT - EFFECT - SALE OF FABRICATED MATERIALS - WHETHER SEPARATE CONTRACT - PROPERTY IN LARGER CORPUS - PASSING OF PROPERTY - INSTALLATION OF BOTTLE COOLING EQUIPMENT - WHETHER WORKS CONTRACT OR SALE OF GOODS - NATURE OF WORK AND SKILL INVOLVED - MANUFACTURE OF EQUIPMENT ACCORDING TO CUSTOMER'S SPECIFICATIONS - INSTALLATION AND FIXING OF EQUIPMENT - SERVICES RENDERED - WHETHER INCIDENTAL OR AUXILIARY - DISTINCTION BETWEEN WORKS CONTRACT AND SALE OF CHATTEL - MANUFACTURE OF CHATTEL ACCORDING TO SPECIAL ORDER - FIXING OR INSTALLING OF CHATTEL - WHETHER WORKS CONTRACT OR SALE OF GOODS - SALE OF FUTURE GOODS - DISTINCTION FROM WORKS CONTRACT - CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ENGINE - WHETHER WORKS CONTRACT OR SALE OF GOODS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a limited liability company carrying on business in structural engineering work and as contractors, fabricated and erected heavy steel structures on behalf of its customers in connection with the construction of sugar factories, etc. It also received orders for the manufacture, fabrication and installation of cooling apparatus, like air coolers, bottle coolers, which were specially manufactured according to the special requirements and specifications of the customers and installed in the latter's premises by the use of skill and labour bestowed by experienced mechanics and specialists engineers of the petitioner-company.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the contract in question was a works contract for work and labour and not a contract for the sale of goods. The court found that the predominant intention of the parties was the performance or carrying out or certain works, and there was no contract for the sale of goods separatim. The court also found that the property in the materials had not passed to the employer while they were in transit and that the petitioner would become entitled to the consolidated sum of Rs. 1, 160 per ton of steelwork only if and after the erection work is complete.
Issues: Whether the contract in question was a works contract for work and labour or a contract for the sale of goods.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the contract in question was a works contract for work and labour and not a contract for the sale of goods. The court found that the predominant intention of the parties was the performance or carrying out or certain works, and there was no contract for the sale of goods separatim. The court also found that the property in the materials had not passed to the employer while they were in transit and that the petitioner would become entitled to the consolidated sum of Rs. 1, 160 per ton of steelwork only if and after the erection work is complete.
Final Decision: The court allowed the tax revision case and held that the petitioner was not liable to pay sales tax on the turnover of the contract in question.
RAMAMURTI, J.
The petitioner in the tax revision case is Richardson and Cruddas Ltd., a limited liability company, carrying on business in structural engineering work, and as contractors at the First Line Bench, Madras. It is admitted that in the course of its business the petitioner-company fabricates and erects heavy steel structures on behalf of its customers in connection with the construction of sugar factories, etc. It is also admitted that in the course of its business the petitioner-company receives order for the manufacture, fabrication and installation of cooling apparatus, like air coolers, bottle coolers, which are specially manufactured according to the special requirements and specifications of the customers and installed in the latter's premises by the use of skill and labour bestowed by experienced mechanics and specialists engineers of the petitioner-company.
In this revision petition, which relates to the assessment year 1957-58, the dispute relates to three items. The first item is with regard to the turnover of a sum of Rs. 3, 26, 075.20 nP. received from its customers, Pandavapura Sahakara Sakhare Karkhane Ltd. (hereinafter called the sugar factory), for the fabrication, supply and erection of steel structures at the site of the sugar factory in Pandavapura, Mysore State, according to the written contract which was entered into between the sugar factory and the petitioner. The objection of the petitioner is that this item represents moneys received in respect of a "works contract" entered into between the petitioner, and its customer, the sugar factory, while the contention of the State is that it represents the price paid for the goods sold by the petitioner-company. The question for determination is whether the turnover in question relates to a works contract or a contract for the sale of goods.The second item relates to a sum of Rs. 43, 349-05 nP. representing payments received from the customers by the petitioner, for the manufacture and installation of bottle coolers as per the special orders placed by the customers for the purpose. Here again the point in issue is whether the contracts in question are "works contracts" or contracts for the sale of goods.
The third item relates to a sum of Rs. 9, 27
3.70 nP., representing sales tax collected by the petitioner from its customers. The contention of the petitioner on this matter is that even though the amendment came on 16th November, 1957, in the middle of the assessment year, the amendment should apply for the entire year both before and after the amendment came into force, while the contention of the State is that the petitioner can have the benefit of the amendment only in respect of the turnover subsequent to the date of the amendment, that is, 16th November, 1957.
It may be mentioned at the outset that in respect of the first item a petition for enhancement was filed by the State before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal enhanced the turnover by Rs. 3, 26, 075.20 nP. holding that the contract in question was not a "work contract," reversing the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. With regard to the other two items, items 2 and 3, the Tribunal affirmed the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
We shall first take up the first item in dispute, Rs. 3, 26, 075.20 nP. The Tribunal has disposed of this aspect of the case in a very summary and mechanical manner by simply referring to some cases without making any effort to understand the principles decided therein, and how far they are applicable to the facts of the instant case. The principles and the tests for determining whether a contract is a "works contract" for work and labour or whether it is a contract for the sale of goods are now well-settled by a series of decisions, both in England and in India. The problem is only the application of the principles to any particular case. In some cases the real character of the contract can be easily ascertained by the application o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.