P.M.S. AND CO. Vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are licensed plumber and Sanitary Engineers. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil, brought in turnover of Rs. 63,591 -30 as exigible to tax. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, deleted from the above a turnover of Rs. 41,257 -99 on the ground that there was no passing of property in the goods supplied by the appellants until the work involved was completed in accordance with the specification of the other party The Board of Revenue, in revision disagreed with the reasoning of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and brought to tax the turnover deleted by him and rested its conclusion on the decision in Udani Engineering Co. v. State of Madras T.C. No. 55 of 1960.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Board of Revenue, the assesses have filed this, appeal. Mr. S. Swaminathan contends that by reason of the subsequent pronouncements of the Supreme Court and in particular the decision of this Court in General Electric Co. of India Private Ltd. v. Government of Madras T.C. 28 of 1964, the Board has not applied the principles whereby tax is exigible in works contracts and that the deletion of the turnover by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is in order In order to appreciate the course of dealings of the appellants, certain sample bills made available before the hierarchy of tribunals below have been referred to once again before us. One such bill is made under the caption " Bill for providing sanitary arrangements.' Almost each item connotes that the amount indicated as against it, covers both the price of the articles supplied and the charges for fitting the same It appears to be a consolidated bill. It cannot prima facie be equated to a sale note of materials, as the Board appears to have done. It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Aruan Electrics v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, (1966) 17 S.T.C. 576 that the invoice alone ought not to be the sole guide to interpret the arrangement between the parties. The Supreme Court has said:

(3.) THE Court in a recent judgment in Mckenzies Ltd. v. Board of Revenue T.C. No. 101 & 102 of 1964 summa -raised the legal position as follows as regards the liability or otherwise to tax transactions involving work and labour: