Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

107. The argument that flat is to be sold as a flat and not an aggregate of its component parts is already negated by the Constitution Bench in Builders' Association. As a matter of fact, in Builders' Association, this argument was advanced on behalf of the States. Repelling the argument, the Constitution Bench observed that:

"39... it was difficult to agree with the contention of the States that the properties that are transferred to the owner in the execution of a works contract are not the goods involved in the execution of works contract, but a conglomerate, that is the entire building which is actually constructed.

108. Yet another argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that in Raheja Development, it is noticed that the builder has a lien on the property but incorrectly states that lien is because they are not owners. It is argued that lien is because if the monies are not recovered from the prospective flat purchasers, the lien can be exercised and this would show that the contract is a contract of an agreement to sell immovable property. The argument is insignificant because if the developer has undertaken to build for the prospective purchaser for cash or deferred payment or a valuable consideration pursuant to a contract then to that extent, the contract is works contract and there is deemed sale of material (goods) used in the construction of building and merely because the builder has a right of lien in the event due monies are not paid does not alter the character of contract being works contract.

109. In Article 366 (29-A) (b), the term "works contract" covers all genre of works contract and it is not limited to one specie of the contract. In Raheja Development, the definition of "works contract" in KST Act was under consideration. That definition of "works contract" is inclusive and refers to building contracts and diverse construction activities for monetary consideration viz; for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration as works contract. Having regard to the factual position, inter alia, Raheja Development1 entered into development agreements with the owners of the land and it also entered into agreements for sale with the flat purchasers, the consideration being payment in installments and also the clauses of the agreement the Court held that developer had undertaken to build for the flat purchaser and so long as there was no termination of the contract, the construction is for and on behalf of the purchaser and it remains a "works contract". The legal position summarized by us and the foregoing discussion would justify the view taken by the two Judge Bench in Raheja Development.

"112. The submission of Mr. K.N. Bhat that the view in Raheja Development1 that when a completed building is sold, there is no work contract and, therefore, no liability to tax is not correct statement of law, does not appeal to us. If at the time of construction and until the construction was completed, there was no contract for construction of the building with the flat purchaser, the goods used in the construction cannot be deemed to have been sold by the builder since at that time there is no purchaser. That the building is intended for sale ultimately after construction does not make any difference."