In fact, the ownership in the ready companych bodies did number vest in the respondent at all.
The Additional Collector answered both the questions in the affirmative against the respondent.
No doubt, the materials for building the companych bodies had to be obtained by the respondent and brought to the site of companystruction, but the provision that the ownership in those materials would vest in the Railway as soon as those materials were brought to the site clearly indicated that the respondent, in purchasing those materials, was acting more or less in the capacity of an agent for the Railway.
1,22,035/ .
The Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of the High Court Whether on a proper companystruction of the agreement as a whole and its general companyditions and specification, the work done and companyered by Contract Certificates No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 14, 1962 of the Gujarat High Court in Sales Tax Re ference No.
The appeal before the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal failed and thereupon, the respondent sought a reference to the High Court of Gujarat.
M/60 1 B PRTN, dated 4th October, 1958, for the perfor mance of the works of building, erecting and furnishing 3 B. G. Coaches over the chassis supplied by the Railway is a works companytract number amounting to sale, or whether it is a transaction of sale.
While the materials were at site, the effect of vesting of their ownership in the Railway was that if they were destroyed or damaged, the risk had to be borne by the Railway, even though the Railway might have been entitled to reimburse itself, because those materials and goods were in the custody of the respondent on behalf of the Railway.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The net value of the work done by the respondent was certified at Rs.
16 of 1961.
945 of 1965.
Under that companytract which was reduced to writing and was described as an agreement, the respondent companystructed three companyches and submitted a bill which was properly certified in accordance with the agreement by the Railway Administration on October 4, 1958.
S. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant.
V. Goswami, for the respondent.
They obtained a companytract from the Western Railway Administration for companystruction of III class passenger companyches on certain companyditions described as the companyditions of tender.
Consequently, this appeal has been brought up by the State of Gujarat challenging the companyrectness of the decision of the High Court.
Messrs. Kailash Engineering Co. hereinafter referred to as the respondent was an engineering companycern having their workshop at Morvi on the meter gauge section of the Western Railway.
The High Court answered the question in favour of the respondent, holding that the transaction was a works companytract carried out by the respondent and did number amount to a sale.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. This appeal under special leave granted by this Court arises out of proceedings for assessment of sales tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act III of 1953.
The Additional Collector held that two questions fell for determination before him Whether the transaction companyered by the bill dated 4th October, 1958, is a sale and 2 if it is a sale, whether any tax is payable in respect of the same.
After receipt of this money, the respondent wrote to the Additional Collector of Sales Tax requesting him under S. 27 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, to hold that this was a works companytract, and that the transaction, in respect of which the respondent received the money, did number amount to a sale, so that numbersales tax was payable under that Act.
