P.C. KURIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue arising in the above revision is basically on facts; but, however, various decisions have been placed on record by learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.V.K.Shamdudheen, which requires us to consider the question as to whether the specific contract entered into by the assessee herein was for transfer of goods in the form of goods or not in the form of goods; the fact admitted being that it is a works contract. Whether the fact adjudication made by the Tribunal is perverse is the question arising.

(2.) According to Sri.Shamsudheen, the agreement in pursuance of the contract awarded stated, simply, the work to be "providing PVC chairs on stainless steel framework". The contract essentially was awarded by the Greater Cochin Development Authority [for brevity "GCDA"] for the purpose of installing chairs for the spectators in a sports stadium constructed by it. The assessee contended that it is a works contract and that the transfer was not in the form of goods. They had purchased steel, carried out fabrication work on it and then fixed the plastic mould of chair on the fabricated frames to form a row of seats; which were installed in the stadium by screwing it on to the construction.

(3.) Sri.K.N.Sreekumar, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee, would contend that the works contract was installation of non-marketable products, which installation work awarded by the GCDA involved fabrication work, plastic moulding works, fixing them together and then screwing it to the construction, i.e., the stadium. Sri.Shamsudheen, again based on the agreement, would contend that the description of the work in the agreement alone would indicate that it is in the form of goods, whether it is marketable or not. What was provided were plastic chairs fixed in steel frames which are goods simpliciter, is the compelling argument.