IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ST Rev No. 169 of 2004()
1. M/S. PINARAYI CARPENTARY & BLACK SMITH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :23/11/2007
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu, C.J. & K.M.Joseph, J.
------------------------------------------------------------------
S.T.Rev.Nos.169 of 2004 & 319 of 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 23rd day of November, 2007
ORDER
H.L.Dattu,C.J.
These Sales Tax Revisions pertain to the assessment years
1996-97 and 1997-98 respectively.
(2) The parties are common in both these revision petitions.
Therefore these revision petitions are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this
common order.
(3) The only issue that would arise for our consideration and
decision is, whether the activity of the petitioner/assessee is sale of goods or is
it in the nature of works contract. If we hold that the activity of the petitioner in
supplying the Bank Counters to the specification of the Bank is in the nature of
sale of Bank Counters, then the petitioner would be entitled for exemption
under a notification issued by the State Government. If we hold otherwise, then
the assessee would go out of the exemption notification and thereby he would
not be entitled for the exemption from payment of sales tax.
(4) The assessee is a Khadi and Village Industrial unit. It is
registered, both under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (“KGST Act” for
short) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (“CST Act” for short).
(5) Initially, the assessing authority had completed the
assessment for the assessment year 1996-97 and had granted total exemption
on the entire turnover of the dealer/assessee. On further scrutiny of the
assessment records, the assessing authority was of the opinion that a
particular item has escaped assessment and, accordingly, had initiated
proceedings invoking his powers under Section 19 of the Act and had brought
S.T.Rev.No.169 & 319 of 2004 – 2 –
to tax the sale of Bank Counters to the Banking institutions as an item which is
not eligible for exemption under the notification issued by the State
Government. So far as the assessment for the year 1997-98 is concerned, the
assessing authority has refused to accept the return filed by the assessee and
has proceeded to pass an order fixing the tax liability of the petitioner by
disallowing the claim for exemption under the aforesaid notification. Aggrieved
by the orders so passed by the assessing authority dated 3.4.2000 and
17.10.2002 respectively, the assessee has preferred appeals before the
Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Kannur in S.T.A.Nos.365 of 2000 and 898
of 2002. The first appellate authority has allowed the appeals by orders dated
11.8.2000 and 3.3.2003. According to the appellate authority, the supply of
Bank Counters to the specification of the customer would still be a “sale” and it
would not fall within the meaning of the expression “works contract”. Therefore,
it was of the opinion that the sale of Bank Counters to the customers is eligible
for exemption under the notification issued by the State Government.
(6) State, being aggrieved by the orders so passed by the first
appellate authority, had carried the matter by way of second appeal before the
Tribunal in T.A.Nos.306 of 2000 and 248 of 2003 for the respective
assessment years. The assessee also filed a Cross Objection in C.O.No.41 of
2000 (in T.A.No.306 of 2000) in respect of the assessment year 1996-97 and a
second appeal in T.A.No.234 of 2003 in respect of the assessment year
1997-98 challenging the levy of tax, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its
orders dated 28.10.2003 and 5.5.2004 allowed the State appeals and also the
assessee’s appeal with regard to levy of tax at the rate of 2.5% on the
purchase turnover of goods and has rejected the Cross Objection of the
assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders so passed by the Tribunal, the
assessee is before us in these revision petitions.
S.T.Rev.No.169 & 319 of 2004 – 3 –
(7) The assessee has raised the following questions of law for
our consideration and decision. They are as under:
“(i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in
adjudicating the matter without due regard to the question as to
burden of proof in disputes relating to works contract?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case and in the light of Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs.
Guntar Tobacco (AIR 1965 SC 1396) the Appellate Tribunal
ought not to have held that it was the burden of respondent –
State to show that the work carried out by the assessee was
works contract and they have not discharged their burden?
(iii) Whether the appellate Tribunal ought not to have treated
supply of Bank Counters as deemed sale as the Bank Counters
had individual existence before its transfer.
(iv) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was proper in approaching
the matter casting the burden on the petitioner?
(v) Whether the Appellate Tribunal ought to have found that
work done by the petitioner was not one found falling under the
definition of ‘work contract’ under section 2 (XXIX – a) of the
KGST Act?”
(8) The admitted facts are that the assessee is a Village
industry. The sale effected by the Village industry is exempted from payment
of tax in view of the notification issued by the State Government. The
exemption notification carves out an exception. The exception is that if the
assessee executes a works contract, then it is not eligible and not entitled for
exemption under the notification.
(9) In the present case, the assessee, pursuant to the
agreement between him and the customer and further in accordance with the
specification of the customer, has manufactured Bank Counters, interior
decorative materials, etc. and thereafter has installed the Bank Counters in the
customers’ place and while doing so, has used wood, plywood, laminated
S.T.Rev.No.169 & 319 of 2004 – 4 –
sheet, Aluminium railings, etc.
(10) The Bank Counters and decorative materials are goods
which are not sold in open market. They are manufactured only at the
specification of the customer. After such manufacture, they are erected and
installed in the customer’s premises to the satisfaction of the customer. The
manufacture, erection and installation of the Bank Counters as per the
agreement between the parties certainly would fall within the meaning of the
expression works contract. Therefore, the transaction of the assessee with
the Bank would certainly fall under Section 5(1)(iv)(b) of the Act.
(11) The Tribunal is the last fact finding authority. After going
through the nature of the contract between the parties, the Tribunal has come
to the conclusion that the transaction of the assessee with its customer for the
supply of Bank Counters is in the nature of works contract. At this stage, it
would be useful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 119 STC 533,
wherein the court has stated, that, the character of a transaction is defined by
the nature of the contract entered into by the parties. The nature of the
contract depends upon the intention of the parties as reflected in the terms and
conditions of the contract documents. The nature of the contract is decided on
the totality of its terms and conditions, i.e. scope and obligation of the parties,
contract value and payment terms, insurance coverage, transfer of ownership
or title in goods supplied, liquidated damages whether restricted to supply
value or not, etc.. Thus the nature of the contract is predominantly based on
facts rather than being a question of law. It is the nature of the contract which
is a deciding factor to determine whether the transaction between the parties is
a contract of sale or works contract. In our view, the Tribunal rightly applying
the tests which is laid down by the Apex Court has held that the contract for
S.T.Rev.No.169 & 319 of 2004 – 5 –
supply and erection of Bank Counters and other decorative items is a works
contract and exigible to payment of tax. Therefore, in our view, the
interference with the impugned order is not called for. Accordingly, the
questions of law framed by the assessee requires to be answered against the
assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
All pending interlocutory applications are dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
H.L.Dattu
Chief Justice
K.M.Joseph
Judge
vku/DK-