JUDGMENT
Veeraswami, J.
1. We are unable to accept the view of the Board that the transactions are sales of goods. In the case of both the contracts, the property in the goods right through remained with either the Neyveli Lignite Corporation or the Highways Department, as the case may be. The granite metal to be supplied under the contracts was, no doubt, to be of specified specifications. But they were to be removed from the site belonging to the Corporation or the Government. There was no stipulation in the contracts for the payment of seigniorage fee or any other consideration for the transfer of property in the granite metal to the assessee. Nor does it appear from the contracts that the granite metal, when removed, should be the property of the assessee free of cost. There was also a further stipulation in the contract that the quantity of metal removed from the prescribed places should only be supplied to the Corporation or the Highways Department. The Board of Revenue thought that these provisions were only meant to regulate the correct supply. This is not the correct view to take. Whether the given transaction is a works contract or a sale of goods will, no doubt, turn upon the construction of the contract, but, in construing, the passing of property and the position of risk in relation to the property have to be kept in view. Having regard to the terms of the contracts in this case, we have no doubt that these are transactions relating to work and labour and they are not sales of goods. Just now we disposed of P. K. Muthurama Reddiar v. The State of Madras Tax Case (Appeal) No. 156 of 1966; since reported at page 174 supra in which we held the transactions to be sales of goods, because there, unlike in this case, the contractor had to pay seigniorage fee for collecting pebbles. The tax appeal is allowed. No costs.