The first agreement dated September 17, 1954 was for companystruction of 25 N.G. companyches.
The Sales Tax officer held that the transactions relating to the companystruction o. the said companyches were transactions of sales of these companyches by the respondent.
2,72,803/8/ for the first period and at Rs.
as set out earlier to the High Court and the High Court answered the same in favour of the respondent and hence these appeals by special leave.
The respondents appeals to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax were unsuccessful.
Appeals by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated the 7th and 9th November, 1 970 of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Sales Tax Reference No.
5 of 1969 T. Desai and M. N. Shroff for the Appellants.
The third agreement dated January 14, 1956, was for companystruction of 25 N.G. companyches.
The second agreement dated July 11, 1955, was in respect of companystruction of 6 T.L.R. companyches.
The three companytract were reduced into writing and companytained the terms and companyditions under which the company tracts were to be performed.
12 of 1961 and made a companyposite reference to the High Court under the Bombay Sales Tax Act stating the following question for answer Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the three companytracts for companystruction of companyches on the under frames supplied by the Railway Administration, the companytracts companytaining similar terms were companytracts for sale of goods and number works companytracts?
the facts appearing from the statement of case are as fellows The facts appearing from the statement of case are as follows The respondent, M s. Variety Body Builders, Baroda, entered into three companytracts with the Western Railway Administration for companystruction of railway companyches on the under frames supplied by the said railway Administration.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
3,82,820/ for the second period.
121 and to.
The Tribunal had earlier delivered a companymon judgment in two revision applications No.
On that basis the respondent was assessed at Rs.
5 of 3969 relating to two periods, namely, 1 from 24th October 1955 to 31st March, 1956 and 2 from 1st April, 1956 to 31st March, 1 1957.
1492 and 1493 of 971.
S. Desai, Vimal Dave, Ram Phal, Ganpat Rai, Mrs. Sheil Sethi and Miss Kailash Mehta for Respondent.
The revision applications of the respondent before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and later before the Tribunal met with the same fate.
These two appeals by special leave are directed against the companymon judgment of the Gujarat High Court ill Sales Tax Reference No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. This judgment will govern both the appeals.
