Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(a) Materials placed by the applicant at the disposal of its sub-contractors ;
(b) Materials placed by the applicant at the disposal of other members of the consortium ; and
(c) Sales of scrap and surplus materials.

9. It was contended further that the agreements between the applicant and its sub-contractors provided for rates for the respective portions of works assigned to the latter which were inclusive of the cost of materials. In respect of certain basic materials like iron, steel and cement the applicant was required to arrange for the supply of the materials to the sub-contractors and did so on the basis of requisitions or indents submitted by the sub-contractors from time to time. The accounts of the sub-contractors were debited at the basic rates of the materials where such basic rates were available or at cost price. In certain cases extra amounts were charged by way of handling charges and storage. The subcontractors in their turn charged the applicant in respect of the works done at the agreed rates including the cost of the materials and in respect of the materials consumed at the works which were placed at the disposal of the subcontractors. The bills of the sub-contractors were accordingly adjusted and only the net amount was paid. The debits which were thus raised in its books did not represent any amount payable by the applicant to its sub-contractors and the amounts of credit were similarly not price or valuable consideration for the sale of the materials to the sub-contractors. The materials were only placed at the disposal of the sub-contractors for the purpose of the work.

12. In respect of sale of scrap and surplus materials it was contended that the primary business of the applicant was to carry out the construction of Durgapur Steel Works and it was not the business of the applicant to sell scrap, surplus or other goods. It was therefore contended that the applicant could not be regarded as a dealer within the meaning of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, in respect of such sales.

13. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes held that the applicant was working in collaboration with the other members of the consortium and its sub-contractors and each of them was entitled to its dues in respect of the portions of the works entrusted to them in terms of the contract. He held further that when goods were transferred by a member of the consortium to others and debits were raised thereon the property in the goods transferred did not remain with the person supplying the same and passed to the members who received them and there was no reason why such transactions could not be held to be sales within the meaning of the Act. In the same way, when the materials were issued by a member to its sub-contractors a sale was effected. He further found that when the materials were purchased by the members of the consortium or the sub-contractors for money, the materials belonged to the actual purchasers absolutely and that the title thereto remained with the purchaser and not with the Government of India, in spite of the fact that such materials were meant for being used in the contract and not for delivery on sale. He held that the provision in the contract to the effect that all materials supplied at the site would become the property of the Government on delivery did not by itself create any proprietary right in favour of the Government of India in respect of such materials and the relevant clause simply indicated that the materials purchased should be utilised only for the project and not for any other purpose. The restriction over the disposal of the materials was meant for the smooth and uninterrupted implementation of the work.

(7) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the construction of the agreement entered into by the applicant with its sub-contractors, the Board could hold that there was any sale of materials simpliciter involved in the said transaction ?
(8) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before the Board to hold that the supply of the materials to the sub-contractors or to the member-contractors or the disposal of the surplus materials were made with a profit-motive ?
(11) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before the Board to hold that the supply of the materials to the member-contractors amounted to carrying on the business of selling goods within the meaning of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 ?
(12) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before the Board to hold that the sale of scrap or surplus materials by the applicant amounted to carrying on the business of selling goods within the meaning of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 ?