IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. Dayal and A. P. Srivastava, JJ.
FORD, MACDONALD LTD. - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX - Respondents
S. T. References 192 Of 1954
Decided On : 09/22/1958
SALES TAX - Building materials used in construction contracts - Whether sale of materials - Whether contractors are dealers - Whether turnover of building materials can be assessed separately from labour charges - Whether assessees liable to pay tax on turnover of building materials supplied through Development Board.
Fact of the Case:
Building contractors were assessed to sales tax on the value of materials used in construction contracts. They contended that the materials were not sold by them and their value could not be included in their turnover for assessment of sales tax.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that there was no sale of materials in building contracts and the contractors were not dealers within the meaning of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. The value of the building materials could not be included in the turnover of the contracts unless specifically contracted to be sold. The assessees were not liable to pay tax on the value of the building materials they had used in connection with their contracts.
Issues: 1. Whether there was sale by the contractors of the building materials used in construction? 2. Whether they (assessees) are dealers within the meaning of the U. P. Sales Tax Act? 3. Whether the turnover of building materials cannot be assessed separately from the labour charges, if their cost is not separately shown in the bills? 4. Whether the assessees were not liable to pay tax on the turnover of the building materials supplied through the Development Board?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd. and Firm of Messrs Peare Lal Hari Singh v. State of Punjab, which held that the expression "sale of goods" in Entry No. 48 of the Second List of the Seventh Schedule of the Government of India Act, 1935, bears the same import as it does in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and that in a building contract there is no sale of materials as such. Therefore, the State Legislature had no power to impose a sales tax on the value of such building materials.
Final Decision: The Court answered the questions referred to it as follows: 1. When contractors use building materials in connection with the constructions which they have undertaken to construct, unless there is a specific and distinct contract that such building materials are being sold, there is no sale of the materials. 2. So far as the building or works contracts and the materials used in connection with those contracts are concerned, the contractors are not "dealers" within the meaning of the U. P. Sales tax Act because they cannot be held to have sold the materials. 3. The value of the building materials used in connection with the construction contracts cannot be included in the turnover of the contracts unless by the contract of the parties such building materials are specifically contracted to be sold. The question whether they are or are not separately shown in the bills is immaterial. 4. It is entirely immaterial whether the building materials used in connection with the contract were supplied through the Development Board or through the P. W. U. or not. The assessees at whose instance these references are made were not liable to pay tax on the value of the building materials they had used, in connection with their contracts.
( 2 ) IT appears that seven applications for reference of certain questions of law to this Court were made by five firms which had been assessed to sales tax by the Sales Tax Officers concerned. All of them were building contractors who had obtained contracts for the construction of buildings and had in connection with those contracts used materials like bricks, wood, cement etc. In the case of some of these contractors the supply of the materials had been arranged for by the Public Works Department or by the Development Board. The value of the materials used in connection with those contracts had not been included in their turnovers by the contractors. The sales Tax Officers had, therefore, issued notices of reassessment to these firms and assessed them on the value of these materials also taking the view that all these materials must be deemed to have been sold by the assessees to the persons for whom they made the contracted constructions. The assessees went up in appeal to the Judge Appeals, Sales Tax, and contended that the material supplied in connection with the construction which they had undertaken could not be considered to have been sold by the contractors and their value could not, therefore, be included in the turnover of these firms for the purposes of assessment of sales tax. The Judge appeals did not agree with this contention and was of opinion that the building materials used in the construction should have been included in the turnover and duly assessed. He, however, sought to make a distinction between the materials which had been received through the P. W. D. and the Development Board and the materials which had not been obtained through these departments. He thought the former ought to be excluded from assessment. He, therefore, sent back the cases to the Sales Tax Officers for re-assessment keeping in view the distinction pointed out by him in his judgment. The matter was however taken up in revision to the Judge revisions, Sales Tax, by the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Judge Revisions confirmed the view taken by the Judge Appeals. The assessees then applied to the Judge Revisions requesting him to refer certain questions to this Court under Section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. These references were then made. The questions which have been thus referred to us for answer are these : (
1) Whether there was sale by the contractors of the building materials used in construction ? (2) Whether they (assessees) are dealers within the meaning of the U. P. Sales Tax Act ? (3) Whether the turnover of building materials cannot be assessed separately from the labour charges, if their cost is not separately shown in the bills ? (4) Whether the assessees were not liable to pay tax on the turnover of the building materials supplied through the Development Board ?
( 3 ) TILL recently there was a sharp difference of opinion between the various High Courts on the main question covered by these references. Some of the High Courts had taken the view that even in works contracts or building contracts like those in question in these references the materials used could be held to have been sold and their value was on that account liable to be included in the turnover which was to be assessed. Other High Courts had taken a different view. Now the matter has been considered by the Supreme Court first in the case of The State of madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd. A. I. R. 1958 S. C. 560, and then in the case of Firm of Messrs Peare Lal Hari Singh v. State of Punjab A. I. R. 1958 S. C. 664. Though both these cases were decided with reference to the Sales Tax Acts of States other than Uttar Pradesh, the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court appear to be applicable to the references in hand also. It was clearly laid down in these
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.