Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. A similar question as above, arose before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Karya Palak Engineer, CPWD, Bikaner v. Rajasthan Taxation Board, Ajmer and Ors. , as is raised in these revision petitions. It was contended in above case that under the terms and conditions of the contract, the material supplied to the contractors remained the absolute property of the Union and the same could not be removed from the site of the work and were at all times open to inspection by the authorities as per the terms and conditions of the contract, if there remains surplus material, then those materials were required to be returned by the contractors. Therefore, the title in the property never transferred to the contractors, and the contractors remained only custodian of such material. It was also contended that no specific consideration was paid for the supply of the goods, therefore, the supply of materials to the contractors did not amount to sale and could not be subjected to sales tax. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, after considering the above pleas, rejected all the contentions following the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the cases of N.M Goel & Co. v. STO and Cooch Behar Contractors' Association v. State of W.B. . In N.M.Goel's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that "by use or consumption of material in the work of construction, there was passing of property in the goods to the assessee from PWD. By appropriation and by the agreement, there was a sale as envisaged in terms of clause of the contract." Here in present cases also, it is not in dispute that the explosives were handed over physically to the contractors and the petitioner-Company received the cost of explosives from the contractor by deducting the cost of explosives from bills of contractor, therefore, with the passing of the goods in the hands of the contractors from the petitioner for consideration, the transaction of sale stands concluded. Transaction is not dependent upon the ultimate use of the goods, transferred to the contractors, as the goods which may have been sold to the contractors for valuable consideration, may be returned to the Principal, if remained unused and the goods in different form may be returned to the Principal and the goods may be consumed or exhausted in the works contract. The transaction of sale completes with the passing of the goods for consideration in the hands of the contractors. Hon'ble the Supreme Court even in a case rejected the contention of the assessee that title in the property never got transferred to the contractor and the contractor remained only a custodian of such materials and held that the transaction is sale.