Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S M.C.(I)PVT.LTD. versus CST

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S M.C.(I)Pvt.Ltd. v. Cst - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1117 of 1993 [2003] RD-AH 436 (10 November 2003)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.55

SALES TAX REVISION NO.1117 OF 1993

M/s Metal Cans (India) Ptv.Ltd., Aligarh ....Applicant

Versus

Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow. ....Opp.Party

..........

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

This revision is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 21.05.1993 relating to assessment year 1985-86.

The only dispute relates to the levy of tax on the supply of material to the contractors from whom applicant got tin containers manufactured. Applicant is the manufacturer of tin containers. Applicant engaged certain contractors for the manufacturing of tin containers on contract basis and for which issued material to them. Contractors manufactured the containers at the premises of the applicant itself. For the execution of job work applicant had also supplied solder, zinc and copper. Assessing authority had treated the supply of solder, zine and copper  as sale and estimated its turn over at Rs.30,000/- First appellate authority confirmed the levy of tax. Tribunal has also confirmed the levy of tax relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.N.Goyal and Company Vs. CST, reported in STC 72, 288.

I have heard Sri Ashok Bhatnagar, holding brief of Sri Shashi Kant Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel.

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that  the applicant had got manufactured tin containers at its own premises through the contractors to whom material was supplied and labour charges was paid. Present is not the case of a works contract but is a case of job work where only labour charges was paid to the contractors and at no point of time title of goods were passed on to the contractors and hence, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.N.Goyal (Supra) is not applicable.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.

In the present case, applicant had got manufactured tin containers at its own premises only on labour charges basis providing the materials. The contractors were given only materials and not any price of any goods. The nature of contract was simple labour contract on job work basis and at no point of time title of any of the goods passed on either from the applicant to the contractors or from contractor to the applicant.  The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.M.Goyal (Supra)  is in a different context and is not applicable to the present case.

In the result, revision is allowed. Tax levied on turn over of Rs.30,000/- relating to zinc and copper is deleted.

Dt.10.11.2003R./


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.