The execution of works contracts is a taxable event under amended sales tax laws, and appropriate classification does not violate constitutional rights.

1. Common questions of law arise out of a common judgment of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal dated 26.4.1990 rendered in RN-30(T), RN-31(T), RN-34(T), RN-103KT), RN-367(T), RN-138(T), RN-338, RN-339 of 1989.

2. The appellants are contractors and they execute civil construction works including construction of roads and bridges under different departments of the Central and State Governments as well as respective corporations. Such works include excavation of earth, drilling, construction of water channel and river bank protection. Such works of contract were not brought under the net of sales tax till the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was amended by the West Bengal Act 4 of 1984 inserting S.6D and amending S.2(c) of the Act. These amendments were pursuant to the 46th Amendment of the Constitution of India in the year 1982 inserting Clause 29A in Art.366.

3. The constitutional validity of the 46th Amendment inserting Clause 29A in Art.366 was challenged and this Court in Builders Association of India and Others v. Union of India and Others , 1989 (2) SCC 645 upheld the constitutionality of the said amendment.

4. As a result of the insertion of S.6D to the Act, all transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract was deemed to be a sale of those goods by the person making the transfer and the purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer was made. The revenue sought to assess the appellants under S.6D of the Act and the appellants aggrieved by such assessments moved the High Court challenging initially the constitutionality of S.6D and finally confining their challenge to certain limited aspects which we shall refer to hereinafter. The cases were originally filed in the High Court and subsequently were transferred to West Bengal Taxation Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") and the Tribunal in its detailed judgment repelled every one of the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants and consequently dismissed the cases.

5. Before us Mr. Jayant Das, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants broadly raised three points while attacking the assessments under S.6D of the Act. The first contention raised by the learned Counsel was that S.6D unjustly discriminates in the matter of grant of declaration forms to the dealers under S.6D and thereby denies the advantage gained by other dealers by using declaration forms and thus it is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India.

6. The second contention put forward by the learned Counsel was that the value of the stores and materials supplied by the contractee to the contractor for the specific purpose of use in the execution of works contract should not be included in the 'contractual transfer price' under S.6D as according to the learned Counsel in such supplies there is no transfer of property and the property always remains with the contractee. The third submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the royalty paid by the contractors in the execution of works contract while procuring boulders, earth etc. should not be included in the 'contractual transfer price'. Another minor point raised by the learned Counsel was that the cost of freight and delivery for carrying goods to the works site should not also be included in the 'contractual transfer price.

7. Mr. B. Sen, learned Senior Counsel in reply submitted that none of the questions raised by the learned Counsel for the