Skip to content


P.M. Venkatachalam Pillai Vs. the State of Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case Number Tax Case No. 248 of 1965 and Revision No. 124
Judge
Reported in[1969]23STC72(Mad)
AppellantP.M. Venkatachalam Pillai
RespondentThe State of Madras
Appellant Advocate K.C. Rajappa, Adv.
Respondent Advocate The Special Government Pleader
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - so far as the factual aspect is concerned, even assuming that it is not a pure question of fact but a mixed one, we are not satisfied that the tribunal went wrong in its view on the materials placed before it. different tests may be applied in answering such a question as the stage of passing of property, risk and the like......intention of the parties viewing the transaction as a whole ; do they intend an apportionment or view the transaction on compartmental basis as that which represents labour and that which represents sale of the materials. different tests may be applied in answering such a question as the stage of passing of property, risk and the like. but all these tests converge towards finding out what the intention of the parties is4. when once it is found that what was sold was only a finished product and the finding is justified on the materials on record, we do not see how an intention could be spelt out to keep separately labour and the materials. the tribunal has proceeded on the basis that what the customer wanted was a finished product for which he paid. on that view it came to the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The question in this case is whether the turnover consisted of the aggregate of labour charges and the cost of materials in printing work or of outright sales of finished commodity. The finding of the Tribunal is that what was sold was only a finished product. The assessee relied on certain bills which showed the cost of materials and labour charges. The Tribunal, however, finds that the separate entries were only a make-believe apportionment for the purpose of sales tax.

2. It is strenuously argued before us that the factual finding should not be accepted, and that even if accepted on the basis that what was supplied was only a finished product, the earlier decisions of this Court show that the consideration for the apportioned transaction could be dissected as for the cost of materials and for labour charges. So far as the factual aspect is concerned, even assuming that it is not a pure question of fact but a mixed one, we are not satisfied that the Tribunal went wrong in its view on the materials placed before it. The assessee did not produce order registers or order books or other documents and relied only on the sale bills, the separate entries in which were not acceptable to the Tribunal. That part of the Tribunal's view is based on an appreciation of the entries which we shall not disturb.

3. It is true that as counsel for the assessee argues in certain earlier cases a dissection of the total consideration for supply of printed materials was made and a deduction of labour charges was permitted. This was upon the view that the contract should be taken to be one for supply of materials to the customer for a consideration and to bestow labour on such materials. Decided cases relating to the question of a works contract or sale may show apparent divergence in approach. On that ground we can find no real difference in view or opinion. The truth lies in the fact that where a transaction is claimed to be a works contract, a decision on the question depends on the particular facts. The primary point to bear in mind in such cases is what is the intention of the parties viewing the transaction as a whole ; do they intend an apportionment or view the transaction on compartmental basis as that which represents labour and that which represents sale of the materials. Different tests may be applied in answering such a question as the stage of passing of property, risk and the like. But all these tests converge towards finding out what the intention of the parties is

4. When once it is found that what was sold was only a finished product and the finding is justified on the materials on record, we do not see how an intention could be spelt out to keep separately labour and the materials. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that what the customer wanted was a finished product for which he paid. On that view it came to the conclusion that the transaction is a sale. We accept its finding.

5. The tax case is dismissed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //