Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 50 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Rajasthan vs Man Industrial Corporation Ltd on 4 February, 1969

Sentinel Rolling Shutters And ... vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 24 February, 1977

8. Mr. Shah placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. In that case pursuant to an invitation of the executive engineer, the assessee submitted its tender for fabricating and fixing certain windows in accordance with specifications, designs, drawing and instructions. The windows were to be fixed to the building with raw plugs in cut stone-works. The rate quoted by the assessee was based on the current price of mild steel billets and the price was to be revised if there was a change in the controlled price of the billets supplied to the assessee. It was held by the Supreme Court that the contract undertaken by the assessee was to prepare the window-leaves according to specifications and to fix them to the building. There were not two contracts, one of sale and another of service. Fixing the windows to the building was also not incidental or subsidiary to the sale, but was an essential term of the contract. The window-leaves did not pass under the terms of the contract as window-leaves. Only on the fixing of the windows stipulated could the contract be fully executed and the property in the windows passed on the completion of the work and not before. Mr. Shah has drawn our attention to an observation in this judgment that fixing of the windows to the building with raw plug required special technical skill. It was urged by him that the skill involved in erecting the steel shutters was greater than the skill which would be involved in fixing such windows as were in question before the Supreme Court and hence the present contract should be construed as an indivisible of work. We find that this decision is not very helpful to the assessee in the case before us. In the first place, in that case it appears that the steel billets were to be supplied by the State of Rajasthan and the price under the contract was liable to revision if there was a change in the controlled price of these buillets. This would show that what the assessee was really engaged to do under the contract was to fabricate the windows out of the steel billets supplied and to fix them to the building in question. Secondly, on the terms and conditions of the contract there it was found that the property in the windows passed only after they were installed whereas in the case before us we have taken the view that the property in the said shutters passed to Shah & Co. once the delivery was taken.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sentinel Rolling Shutters And ... vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 24 February, 1977

11. Mr. Shah placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. ([1969] 24 S.T.C. 349 (S.C.)) In that case, pursuant to an invitation of the Executive Engineer, the assessee submitted its tender for fabricating and fixing certain windows in accordance with specifications, designs, drawing and instructions. The windows were to be fixed to the building with rawl plugs in cut stone-works. The rate quoted by the assessee was based on the current price of mild steel billets and the price was to be revised if there was a change in the controlled price of the billets supplied to the assessee. It was held by the Supreme Court that the contract undertaken by the assessee was to prepare the window-leaves according to the specifications and to fix them to the building. There were not two contracts, one of sale and another of service. Fixing the windows to the building was also not incidental or subsidiary to the sale, but was an essential term of the contract. The window-leaves did not pass under the terms of the contract as window-leaves. Only on the fixing of the windows as stipulated could the contract be fully executed and the property in the windows passed on the completion of the work and not before. Mr. Shah has drawn our attention to an observation in this judgment that fixing of the windows to the building with rawl plugs required special technical skill. It was urged by him that the skill involved in erecting the steel shutters was greater than the skill which would be involved in fixing such windows as were in question before the Supreme Court and hence the present contract should also be construed as an indivisible contract of work. We find that this decision is not very helpful to the assessees in the case before us. In the first place, in that case it appears that the steel billets were to be supplied by the State of Rajasthan and the price under the contract was liable to revision if there was a change in the controlled price of these billets. This would show that what the assessee was really engaged to do under the contract was to fabricate the windows out of the steel billets supplied and to fix them to the building in question. Secondly, on the terms and conditions of the contract there, it was found that the property in the windows passed only after they were installed whereas in the case before us we have taken the view that the property in the said shutters passed to Shah & Company once the delivery was taken.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner, Sales Tax vs Ram Singh And Sons Engineering Works on 29 January, 1975

30. For the assessee reliance was placed upon State of Rajasthan v. Man Industrial Corporation [1969] 24 S.T.C. 349 (S.C.). In that case the contract was for providing and fixing four different types of windows with rawl plugs in cut-stone works in a building. The Supreme Court put the question : What did the respondent agree to do when it offered its tender ? Did the respondent agree to sell the window-leaves as described in the tender or did it, as part of a works contract, agree to "fix" the windows of certain specifications in the building ? On a consideration of all the circumstances it was held that the object was to enter into a works contract. The fixing of windows was found to be an essential term of the contract which was not incidental or subsidiary to the sale. There the windows on being fixed became part of the building as an accretion to it. The property passed on accretion. That was held to be the main object.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

M/S. Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd vs State Of T.N. & Ors on 6 May, 2014

13. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan, has submitted that the decision rendered in Vanguard Rolling Shutters & Steel Works (supra), Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. (supra) and Nenu Ram (supra) do not lay down the correct law because the underlying reason accorded in those cases is that if a particular item is to be fixed in the immovable property, then the property passes on as an immovable property and, therefore, cannot be construed as a sale.
Supreme Court of India Cites 74 - Cited by 90 - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu vs Eff. Aar. Fabrications on 9 September, 1992

The same was also affirmed by the apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. [1969] 24 STC 349. The apex Court held that the contract in question therein was a composite one and there were no two contracts one of sale and another of service and the windows did not pass under the contract as windows and it is only when the windows are actually fixed as stipulated the contract is fully executed and property also passed therein after such completion of the work and not before. The contract was held to be for execution of work not involving sale of goods.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner, Trade Tax vs S/S Electra (India) Ltd. on 7 February, 2006

24. Looking to the fact that the contract was for repair of transformers and the price stipulated included the value of parts and labour charges for removal of damaged parts, fittings, fixing and connection The replaced parts were therefore, passed on to the Electricity Board only when the damaged parts were removed and the new parts were fitted, fixed and connected in a transformer. Thus, in my opinion, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Industrial Corporation (supra) and in the case of Sentinel Rolling Shutters and Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra (supra), the repairing of transformers, which invoked removal of damaged parts, replacement of parts, its fittings, fixing and connection, amounts to works contract and not the contract for sale. It may be mentioned here that the charging of tax in the bill and receiving Form 3-D would not decide the nature of transactions, if the contract is a works contract in law. it will remain works contract and will not become contract of sale, merely because, tax is charged and Form 3-D have been received.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next