JOSEPH TECHNICAL INSTITUTE Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS tax case is preferred against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), against the order of assessment passed for the assessment year 1978-79. The petitioner-assessee disputed the turnover of Rs. 39, 063. The assessee had undertaken lump sum contract of supplying and fixing of doors and windows. THIS is the turnover which is sought to be assessed by the authorities below. The assessing authority, in his assessment, points out the objection as follows : "Works contract for Rs. 39, 063.15. THIS is lump sum indivisible works contract for the supply and fixing of doors and windows at the customers'premises. We are enclosing herewith copies of (photostat) of the works order/quotations in support of our stand." After pointing out the objection as above, the assessing officer came to the conclusion that the transaction could not be treated as works contract, in the absence of positive proof. He came to the conclusion that there is no agreement or no proof in the accounts or the sale bills that the door frames had actually been fixed on the buildings and particularly there is no evidence to show who transported the door frames to the site. On appeal, the first appellate authority, after considering the orders passed by the assessing authority and after referring to the bills that charges have been made for supply and fixing of doors and ventilators, came to the conclusion, just because the customer had placed order for supply and fixing of doors and ventilators, the assessee will not be automatically eligible for exemption as relating to works contract. The first appellate authority relied upon a decision of this Court in A.R. Brothers v. Government of Tamil Nadu. On appeal, the Tribunal referred to the decision of this Court in A.R. Brothers v. Government of Tamil Nadu and came to the conclusion that the facts of this case also were similar to that of the case decided by the Division Bench of this Court cited supra. The Tribunal further held that prima facie there is evidence of contract of sale and rejected the plea of the assessee that they had taken lump sum works contract for the supply and fixing of doors and ventilators. Against this order of the Tribunal, the petitioner-assessee is before us.

(2.) MR. S. Ramanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-assessee, contended that by no stretch of imagination, the transaction in question could be called as works contract (sic), as the contract between the parties is clearly shown in the invoices. Learned counsel has produced before us the concerned invoice with regard to the revision before us and it contains that : "doors and windows made according to the approved blue print of your engineer and fixing the shutters." Relying upon the invoices and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Nenu Ram and also in Vanguard Rolling. Shutters & Steel Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, learned counsel for the assessee contends that the price charged by the assessee from the customer was one lump sum without at all specifying as to what part was meant for the materials used or fabricated and what part for the services or labour put in by the assessee. Learned counsel points out that the process involved in the making of doors and windows and their actual fitting to the premises in the site was a continuous one and was completed only when erection was completed in every way. As such, learned counsel states that the contract was works contract and is not exigible to sales tax.