PURI SONS ENGINEERS PVT LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir for quashing order dated 16th of June, 1998, passed by respondent -3, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax Department, Check Post, Lakhanpur, Jammu, whereby Air Conditioners, came to be seized and petitioner was directed to pay Sales Tax, while holding that the contract in question was a "works contract", and not a "contract for sale".

(2.) PRECISE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act, and is manufacturer of Air Conditioners. In the course of its business, the petitioner had entered into a contract with Director General Supplies and Disposal (for short DGS&D) for its DGS&D Rate Contract vide No.ME -3/RC -4298/Split AC/03/97 -98/Purisons/COAD/899 dated 23 -10 -1997 (for short DGS&D Rate Contract). As per the mandate of DGS&D Rate Contract, the Executive Engineer (E), Telecom Electric Division, Jammu, vide his supply order No.6/SO/97 -98/2071 -78 dated 20 -10 -1998, placed Supply Order for supply of Split -Type Room Air Conditioners to the petitioner Company at Delhi. After inspection, goods were delivered to M/s Nagpal Transport Service for its delivery in the office of Executive Engineer (E), Telecom Electric Division, Jammu, after Central Sales Tax was charged against Form -D. Respondent -3 at Lakhanpur detained the vehicle of M/s Nagpal Transport Service along with goods and asked the petitioner to pay local tax, i.e., Sales Tax under the Jammu & Kashmir General Sales Act, 1962. Petitioner was constrained to file an application and, accordingly, impugned order came to be passed.

(3.) PETITIONER could not file appeal in terms of mandate of Section 11 of the (Unamended) Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962, for the reasons that appeal could have been preferred before the Special Tribunal, but composition of Special Tribunal had not started at that point of time. The main challenge to the impugned order is that contract/supply order is a contract for sale and not a works contract.