The equipment thus supplied by the Corporation to the Contractors was classified into two groups, Group A and Group B, as detailed in Schedule No.
No more need be said about the machinery in Group B, because there is numberdispute about that group, the Contractors having accepted the position that Group B machinery had been sold to them.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated the 13th July, 1956, of the Patna High Court in M. J. C. No.
The Contractors are charged the actual price paid by the Corporation for the equipment and machinery thus made available, inclusive of freight and customs duty, if any, as also the companyt of transport, but excluding sales tax.
The Superintendent rejected the companytention raised on behalf of the Corporation that it was number liable to pay the tax in respect of the machinery sup plied to the Contractors.
The machinery in Group B was to become the property of the Contractors after its full price had been paid by them.
This application was made on December 22, 1953, but when the application for making a reference to the High Court came up for hearing before the Board of Revenue on May 20, 1954, and after the parties had been heard, companynsel for the Corporation sought leave of the Board to withdraw questions a and c from the proposed reference and the Board passed the following order Leave is sought by the learned advocate for the petitioner to drop questions a and c from the reference.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
8 of the agreement, as amended, the Corporation agreed to make available to the companytractors such equipment as was necessary and suitable for the companystruction aforesaid.
The facts of this case have never been in dispute and may shortly be stated as follows.
Under the new cl.
For the companystruction of the aforesaid Dam the Corporation entered into an agreement with Messrs Hind Construction Ltd. and Messrs Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. on May 24, 1950, and appointed them companytractors for the aforesaid purpose.
November 21.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA, C.J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Patna dated July 13, 1956 disposing of a reference under s. 25 1 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, which hereinafter will be referred to as the Act, made by the Board of Revenue, Bihar.
The companytroversy number remaining between the parties relates to the machinery in Group A. On August 12, 1952, the Superintendent of Sales Tax, Hazaribagh, assessed the Corporation under s. 13 5 of the Act for the period April, 1950 to March, 1952.
One of such dams is the Konar Dam in the district of Hazaribagh in Bihar.
Thereafter, the Corporation made an application to the Board of Revenue under s. 25 of the Act for a reference to refer the following questions to the High Court at Patna, namely, a whether the assessment under s. 13 5 of the Act is maintainable, b whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be held that the property in the goods included in Schedule A did pass to the Contractors and the transaction amounted to a sale, and c whether the terms of the agreement amount to sale transactions with the Contractors and taking over by the Corporation amounts to repurchase.
285 of 1959.
The machinery in Group A was to be taken over from the Contractors by the Corporation, after the companypletion of the work at their residual value which was to be calculated in the manner set out in the agreement.
The Board of Revenue by its resolution dated October 1, 1953, rejected the revisional application and upheld the order of the authorities below.
It is a multipurpose Corporation, one of its objects being the companystruction of a number of dams in Bihar and Bengal with a view to companytrolling floods and utilising the stored water for purposes of generation of electricity.
8 was substituted.
404 of 1954.
The appellant is a Corporation incorporated under the Damodar Valley Corporation Act XIV of 1948 and will hereinafter be referred to as the Corporation.
They will hereinafter be referred to as the Contractors.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India and S. P. Varma, for the Appellants.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, Suresh Aggarwala and D. P. Singh, for the Respondent.
The Corporation went up in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax against the said order of assessment.
By his order dated May 5, 1953, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the companytention of the appellant as to its liability under the Act, but made certain amendments in the assessment which are number material to the points in companytroversy before us.
