SYED USMAN SAH Vs. STATE OF MYSORE AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a P. W. D. contractor working in the Thungabhadra Project area. He had entered into contracts with the Superintending Engineer, Thungabhadra Hydro electric Scheme for construction of staff quarters at Kamalapur. In response to notices issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Hospet, he made a return of a gross turnover of Rs. 30845-11-0 in respect of the year 1953-54, but claimed complete exemption from tax thereon on the ground that the entire turnover related to works contracts which could not be taxed in view of the decision of the Madras High Court reported in Cannon Dunkerley and Co., (Madras) Ltd. v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 Mad 1130. The Officer, however, declined to accept this contention of the petitioner and levied sales tax determining the petitioner's turnover in accordance with the rules in force in Madras area relating to determination of turnover in respect of works contracts. This was by an order dated 29-6-1954 in Assessment No. A2. 4148/53-54. By the same order, he also made a provisional assessment in respect of the immediately of the immediately year 1954-55. Subsequently on 6-6-55, a final assessment order was also passed in respect of the year 1954-55. An appeal against the latter order was dismissed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bellary on 24-8-1955. On 11-1-1957, the petitioner presented this writ Petition in which the prayer is for the issue of "an appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the respondents to refund the sales tax illegally exacted from the petitioner in respect of his works contracts turnover." The respondents are the State of Mysore and the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Hospet.

(2.) On behalf of the State, it has not been disputed that the turnover on which sale tax has been levied as aforesaid was turnover in respect of works contracts, which were entire and indivisible. There is no suggestion that any part of this turnover related to any distinct or independent contracts for sale of material; not is it suggested that the contracts claimed to be works contracts by the petitioner can be broken up into several component parts as regards one or more of which it could be said that they represent distinct contracts or agreements for sale of materials as such.

(3.) The view taken by the High Court of Madras in the case mentioned above has been confirmed by the Supreme Court of India on appeal is reported in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co., (Madras) Ltd., AIR1958 SC 560 , [1959 ]1 SCR379 , [1958 ]9 STC353 (SC ).