H Y JADHAV Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these four connected sales tax revision petitions the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of the Full Bench :

(2.) The brief facts of these cases, which have given rise to the above question, are as follows :

(3.) Sri K. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the work of preparing ballast from the quarry together with the requirement of transporting and stacking at specified places constituted works contract and not a mere sale of ballast. He did not dispute that the work of stacking of ballast entrusted to the petitioner only consisted of arranging the heaps of ballast in the required size and shape at each delivery point but, however, contended that such work also amounts to training out operation as explained in Bhide's case ([1969] 24 S.T.C. 446; (1968) 2 Mys. L.J. 557.) and, therefore, the same was works contract not liable to be taxed under the Act. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ram Singh & Sons Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. AIR1979 SC 545 , (1979 )1 SCC487 , [1979 ]2 SCR621 , [1979 ]43 STC195 (SC ), Sentinel Rolling Shutters & Engineering Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra AIR1978 SC 1747 , (1978 )4 SCC260 , [1979 ]1 SCR644 , [1978 ]42 STC409 (SC ), 1978 (10 )UJ766 (SC ), and State of Rajasthan v. M.I. Corporation AIR1969 SC 1245 , (1969 )1 SCC567 , [1969 ]3 SCR505 , [1962 ]24 STC349 (SC ).