Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.21 seconds)Article 286 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Builders Association Of India & Ors. ... vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc on 31 March, 1989
10. The decision in Buildings Association case (supra) was reiterated in Cannon Dunkerly & Co. case reported in (1993) 88 STC page 204.
Section 58 in The Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
The State Of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley & Co.,(Madras) Ltd on 1 April, 1958
"Even after the decision of this Court in State of Madras v. Cannon Dunkerly & Co. (Madras) Ltd. (supra), it was quite possible that where a contract entered into in connection with the construction of a building consisted of two parts, namely, one part relating to the sale of material used in the construction of the building by the contractor to the person who had assigned the contract to the person who had assigned the contract and another part dealing with the supply of labour and services, sales tax was leviable on the goods which were agreed to be sold under the first part. But sales tax could not be levied when the contract in question was a single and indivisible works contract. After the 46th Amendment the works contract which was an indivisible one is by a legal fiction allered into a contract which is divisible into one for sale of goods and the other for supply of labour and services. After the 46th Amendment, it has become possible for the Stales to levy sales lax on the value of goods involved in a works contract in the same way in which the sales tax was leviable on the price of the goods and materials supplied in a building contract which had been entered into in two distinct and separate parts as stated above. It could not have been the contention of the Revenue prior to the 46th Amendment that when the goods and materials had been supplied under a distinct and separalc contract by the contractor for the purpose of construction of a building the assessment of sales tax could be made -ignoring the restrictions and conditions incorporated in Article 286 of the Constitution. If that was the position can the States contend after the 46th amendment under which by a legal fiction the transfer of property in goods involved in a works contract was made liable to payment of sales tax that they are not governed by Article 286 while levying sales tax on sale of goods involved in a works contract? They cannot do so. When the law creates a legal fiction such fiction should be carried to its logical end. There should not be any hesitation in giving full effect to it. If the power to tax a sale in an ordinary sense is subject to certain conditions and restrictions imposed by the Constitution, the power to tax a transaction which is deemed to be a sale under Article 366(29A) of the Constitution should also be subject to the same restrictions and conditions."