AUDDY AND CO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following two questions under section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act :

(2.) THE facts on the basis of which this reference has been made have been put by the Tribunal in its appellate order thus :

(3.) APPLYING the aforesaid tests to this case, there is no escape from the conclusion that there was no agreement between the petitioner and Hindustan Steel Ltd. for sale of materials. The agreement involved a pure works contract for providing sanitary installation, water-supply and drainage to different buildings in various sectors. The payment agreed to be made was a lump sum payment for the entire work. There is no provision for separate payment for sale of materials. The Tribunal seems to have been very much obsessed by the notion that the materials used did not lose their identity when fitted into the buildings and they can be removed from one place and fitted up at some other place and as such continued to be movables even after the fixing had been done to the buildings. This notion is contrary to law as enunciated above.