Skip to main content

Supreme Court on Sale and WC

Important principles on distinction between "contract for sale of goods" and "works contract" explained

A Constitutional Bench of 5 Judges of the Supreme Court had to consider whether the law laid down by a three-Judge Bench in State of A.P. v. Kone Elevators (India) Ltd (2005) 3 SCC 389 that a contract for manufacture, supply and installation of lifts in a building is a "contract for sale of goods" and not a "works contract" is correct or not. HELD by the Constitution Bench over-ruling the three-Judge Bench judgement:

(i) In the case of a "contract for sale of goods", the entire sale consideration is taxable under the sales tax or value added tax enactments of the State legislatures. In the case of a "works contract", the consideration paid for the labour and service element has to be excluded from the total consideration received and only the balance is chargeable to sales tax or value added tax;

(ii) Four concepts have clearly emerged from the numerous judgements of the Supreme Court on the point. They are (a) the works contract is an indivisible contract but, by legal fiction, is divided into two parts, one for sale of goods, and the other for supply of labour and services; (b) the concept of "dominant nature test" or, for that matter, the "degree of intention test" or "overwhelming component test" for treating a contract as a works contract is not applicable; (c) the term "works contract" as used in Clause (29A) of Article 366 of the Constitution takes in its sweep all genre of works contract and is not to be narrowly construed to cover one species of contract to provide for labour and service alone; and (d) once the characteristics of works contract are met with in a contract entered into between the parties, any additional obligation incorporated in the contract would not change the nature of the contract;

(iii) The "dominant nature test" or "overwhelming component test" or "the degree of labour and service test" are really not applicable. If the contract is a composite one which falls under the definition of works contracts as engrafted under clause (29A)(b) of Article 366 of the Constitution, the incidental part as regards labour and service pales into total insignificance for the purpose of determining the nature of the contract;

(iv) On facts, the three-Bench judgement erred in taking the view that the major component was the equipment and that the skill and labour employed for converting the main components into the end product were only incidental. The principal logic applied, i.e., the incidental facet of labour and service is not correct because in all the cases, there is a composite contract for the purchase and installation of the lift. The price quoted is a composite one for both. Various technical aspects go into the installation of the lift. There has to be a safety device. In certain States, it is controlled by the legislative enactment and the rules. In certain States, it is not, but the fact remains that a lift is installed on certain norms and parameters keeping in view numerous factors. The installation requires considerable skill and experience. The labour and service element is obvious. The preparatory work has to be done taking into consideration as to how the lift is going to be attached to the building. The nature of the contracts clearly exposit that they are contracts for supply and installation of the lift where labour and service element is involved. Individually manufactured goods such as lift car, motors, ropes, rails, etc. are the components of the lift which are eventually installed at the site for the lift to operate in the building. In constitutional terms, it is transfer either in goods or some other form. In fact, after the goods are assembled and installed with skill and labour at the site, it becomes a permanent fixture of the building. However, if there are two contracts, namely, purchase of the components of the lift from a dealer, it would be a contract for sale and similarly, if separate contract is entered into for installation, that would be a contract for labour and service. But, a pregnant one, which is a composite contract for supply and installation, has to be treated as a works contract, for it is not a sale of goods/chattel simpliciter. It is not chattel sold as chattel or, for that matter, a chattel being attached to another chattel.


Popular posts from this blog


CONTENTS SR. NO. CHAPTER PAGE NO. INTRODUCTION STOCK & RECEIVABLES AUDIT VERIFICATION OF STOCK & DEBTORS PROCEDURE OF STOCK AUDIT VERIFICATION OF SECURITIES ANALYTICAL REVIEW INTERNAL CONTROL QUESTIONNAIRE STOCK b) BOOK DEBTS LIST OF DOCUMENTS TAKEN AS WORKING PAPERS SPECIMEN INSPECTION REPORT SPECIMEN MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATION LETTER CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: Banking is an important sector of the economy of any country and for the development of the economy a healthy banking system is a must. After the liberalization of the economy, the banking system has undergone a total change in India. There is hard competition in the banking industry to survive in the current circumstances. With the purpose to have better financial discipline & to ensure uniformity in accounting norms RBI introduced the concept of assetclassification & income recognition as per the recommendations of Narasimhan Committee. It was also suggested to classify the advances given by banks into Performing & Non Perfor…

Excel Add-in to convert amount in figures to words by Premal

AmtInWords.xla is attached to this mail. It is an MS Excel Add-in written by me to convert amount available in figures to words.
Copy the attached file to the folder where excel stores the add-ins. (To know where excel stores the add-ins, open any workbook, click on Tools - Add-ins - Browse)
Then open an excel workbook. Click on Tools - Add-ins - Browse - Give the path to this Addin - Ok
You can use the functions AmtInWords and AmtInWordsUS in any worksheet. The syntax is:
=AmtInWords(decimal number/cell reference, [currency code])
=AmtInWordsUS(decimal number/cell reference, [currency code])
Examples follow:
=AmtInWordsUS(B3) ' Shall give the amount in millions (US format)
=AmtInWordsUS(B3,"USD") ' Shall give the amount in millions (US format) and in US currency (Dollars)
=AmtInWords(C4,"GBP") ' Shall give the amount in lakhs and in UK currency (Pounds)
The system shall N…

A Complete Guide to sections 54 & 54F Exemptions - T.V. GANESAN CS

A Complete Guide to sections 54 & 54F Exemptions T.V. GANESAN CS If an individual transfers any long-term capital asset and plans to reinvest the sale proceeds in a new residential house property then he would be eligible to claim exemption under sections 54 and 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. In the last couple of years there has been a phenomenal increase in the sale of properties resulting in capital gain including but not limited to the land owners giving the land to the developers and entering into Joint Development Agreement, receiving more than one flat from the builder and yet avoiding capital gains tax. In this article the author has enumerated various decisions and judgments of the Tribunals and the High Courts which have liberally interpreted the provisions of the Income-tax Act and extended the capital gains exemptions to the assessees. Introduction 1. Out of the various investment options available, investment in real estate …