Log in Register

Login to your account

Username *
Password *
Remember Me

Create an account

Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.
Name *
Username *
Password *
Verify password *
Email *
Verify email *
Captcha *
View more blog entries

Consult Construction

Consult Us For Construction

Transaction of Sale or Work Contract

Posted by on in Works Contract Service
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 3773
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print
  • Report this post



Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Transaction of sale or Work contract - Contract for designing, engineering, supplying, erection, installation and Commissioning of the Trombay-V Expansion Project – contract involving manufacture, inspection, shipping, clearance and dispatch - Assessee in appeal against Tribunal order holding that supplies of material were sales, liable to tax under the BST Act, 1959

HELD – it is seen that the foundation is to prepare by FPDIL and not the applicant. The applicant is to supply equipment and erect it on the site. Work of erection is not separately valued but is tied with transportation costs and insurance. In any event this is only a fraction of total cost. In the circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention of the applicant that the contract is one of work.

In value terms, the amounts spent for erection is minuscule. This notwithstanding, the transaction seems to be for supply of the compressors at a site prepared by FPDIL in terms of foundation and merely fixing four compressors. The schedule also provides for materials and workmanship guarantees which are restricted to specification laid down in the contract and free from defects in design and material in relation to equipment and not in relation to the work of installation.

Repair and replacement of the equipment is also contemplated at site. There is nothing to indicate that the guarantees also include the entire erection work - considering the factual matrix and the law and after applying the tests in Kone Elevator case, it is evident that in the facts of the present case the contract was clearly one for supply and erection of equipment, supply of equipment being dominant purpose

FPDIL was required to carry out all preparation work, provide foundation, provide all civil works required, the equipment was merely supplied and installed - The transaction entered by the applicant with RCF is one for sale and not for works contract – answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee


Rate this blog entry:
Trackback URL for this blog entry.


  • No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment

Leave your comment

Guest Sunday, 17 November 2019

Like us on facebook

Twitter Feed

ConsultC Please find the latest presentation given to select gathering of real estate developers at Kolkata on West Bengal H… https://t.co/Uizrcczy13
ConsultC Apart from the intricacies of the Forms and constant regulatory changes, GST has a lot of other aspects. We had an… https://t.co/YB1asAgU2s
ConsultC Second Edition of our book released with latest amendments upto September, 2018 https://t.co/eOwUcNZife


304, Super Plaza, Sandesh Press Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad
+91 - 079 - 40032950
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

markerFind on Google Maps

Who we are

We are Ahmedabad based professional consulting firm. We are providing various services to Construction, Real Estate and Project Companies in various areas like Indirect Taxation – Service Tax & Multi state VAT consultancy, ERP implementation, Site & Management audit, Designing Tender & other related contractual documents etc.