The judgment of the court was delivered by

GULATI, J. - This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a partnership firm which carries on business of automobile engineers and of running a service station and a workshop at Lucknow in the firm name of M/s. Bajoria Halwasiya Service Station. On 12th March, 1968, the petitioner entered into a contract with the Deputy Director of Agriculture, U.P., to fabricate and supply two steel bus bodies on chassis to be supplied by the Deputy Director for a lump sum of Rs. 4,100 plus sales tax or each bus body. The bus bodies were to be manufactured in accordance with the specifications and with the materials specified in the memorandum of specifications annexed to the agreement. The bus bodies were also required to be fitted with certain accessories like number plates, reflectors, light and electric bells, water-proof tarpaulins etc. The contract was to be executed by a specified date and the payment was to be made to the petitioner after a certificate of fitness had been furnished from the transport department of the Government.

In due course the petitioner executed the contract and received payment under it. The petitioner also deposited a certain amount by way of sales tax.

When the proceedings for assessment under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1967-68 commenced the petitioner claimed exemption from tax in respect of the payment received by it from the Deputy Director on the ground that the contract executed by it was a contract of work and labour not involving sale of any goods. This contention was not accepted by the Sales Tax Officer, who levied tax on the turnover representing the sale proceeds of the bus bodies at the rate of 10 per cent. treating the bus bodies to be taxable at a single point under notification issued under section 3-A of the Act. The petitioner has challenged the assessment order in this writ petition on various grounds.

The first ground upon which the assessment order has been challenged is that the contract under which the petitioner received the payment in dispute was a contract of work and labour and not a contract for the sale or supply of any goods and as such the U.P. Sales Tax Act had no application. The next contention is that the bus bodies are not covered by the relevant notification and the last contention is that the notification itself is ultra vires being outside the scope of section 3-A of the Act.

Taking up the first ground it may be stated at the outset that the question as to whether a particular contract is a contract of work and labour or a contract of sale of goods depends entirely upon the intention of the parties to be gathered from the terms of the contract. There is no universal test applicable to all cases. This proposition is settled beyond dispute by two recent decisions of the Supreme Court both reported in 16 S.T.C., viz., Patnaik and Company v. State of Orissa ([1965] 16 S.T.C. 364) and McKenzies Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra ([1965] 16 S.T.C. 518).

Both these cases deal with the fabrication and supply of bus bodies. The leading case is that of Patnaik and Company ([1965] 16 S.T.C. 364). In that case the petitioner had entered into a contract with the Government for the fabrication and supply of certain bus bodies to the Government on the chassis to be supplied by the latter. There also the bus bodies were to be fabricated according to the specifications and with the material specified in the contract and were also to be fitted with certain accessories and the bus bodies were to be delivered within a specified time. While dealing with the argument like the one put forward before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner the Supreme Court at page 373 observed :

"Mr. Viswanatha Sastri, the learned counsel for the appellant, has addressed an elaborate argument to us and contended that the present case is not distinguishable from the decision of this court in Gannon Dunkerley'