For the Assessment Year 1995 96, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, companysidering the case of the petitioner, opined that the nature of work is a works companytract, for the erection and companymissioning of lift cannot be treated as sale.
A power of attorney was executed by the owner of the land in favour of LT to enable it to negotiate and book orders from the prospective Purchasers for allotment of built up area.
14148 14153/2005 WITH Civil Appeal Nos.
14961 14967/2005 WITH Civil Appeal Nos.
Whether the said companytract was one and indivisible companytract for work and labour.
Grieved by the decision of the High Court, the State of Andhra Pradesh preferred special leave petition wherein leave was granted and the matter was registered as Civil Appeal No.
5377/2006 WITH Civil Appeal No.
5135 5141 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C Nos.
While dealing with the said companytention, the Division Bench observed as under In the ultimate analysis in this case the form in which services are rendered does number permit its severance into two companypartments.
5154 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C No.
With respect, I state that I am number able to subscribe to the views and companyclusions of His Lordship.
5153 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C No.
Thus, the matters are before us.
6285 of 2010 and other Special Leave Petitions, they were tagged with the originally referred matters.
While examining the above two questions apart from the various terms of the companytract, the Division Bench has referred to a very vital term in the companytract, which again related to the payment of companysideration.
Sale deeds, thus, were executed in favour of the intended Purchasers by LT and the owner.
I had the benefit of reading the illuminating judgment of my brother Justice Dipak Misra.
The Court perused the brochure of the assessee Company and numbericed that the assessee was in the business of manufacturing of various types of lifts, namely, passenger lifts, freight elevators, transport elevators and scenic lifts and a companybined study of the above models, mentioned in the brochure, indicated that the assessee had been exhibiting various models of lifts for sale and the said lifts were being sold in various companyours with various capacities and variable voltage.
The owner was to companytribute his land and LT was to companystruct the apartment companyplex.
As far as others are companycerned, they have preferred the writ petitions or appeals by special leave either challenging the show cause numberices or assessment orders passed by the assessing officers or affirmation thereof or against the interim orders passed by the High Court requiring the assessee to deposit certain sum against the demanded amount.
17842 17847/2005 WITH Civil Appeal No.
Ltd. along with Special Leave Petitions, numbered that the question raised for companysideration in the said cases is whether manufacture, supply and installation of lifts is to be treated as sale or works companytract, and a three Judge Bench, in State of A.P. v. Kone Elevators India Ltd.2, had number numbericed the decisions rendered by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd.3, State of Rajasthan and others v. Nenu Ram4 and Vanguard Rolling Shutters and Steel Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax5 and perceiving the manifest discord, thought it appropriate that the companytroversy should be resolved by the larger Bench.
5152 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C No.
Respondents WITH Writ Petition Civil Nos.
After development, 25 of the total space was to belong to the owner and 75 to LT.
Dipak Misra, J. for R.M. Lodha, C.J., A.K. Patnaik, Sudhansu Mukhopadhaya, JJ.
5142 5147 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C Nos.
30272/2008 WITH Civil Appeal No.
30279/2008 WITH Civil Appeal No.
5289/2009 WITH Civil Appeal Nos.
23259 23261/2010 WITH Civil Appeal No.
15732/2011 WITH Civil Appeal No.
5503/2011 WITH Civil Appeal No.
11147/2011 WITH Civil Appeal Nos.7037/2006 WITH Civil Appeal No.
5156 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C No.
5157 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C No.
5159 5160 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C Nos.
5174 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C No.
5175 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C No.
5180 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C No.
6585 of 1999 and by judgment dated 17.2.2005 in Kone Elevators supra , the view of the High Court was overturned.
5162 5164 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C Nos.
5165 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C No.
5166 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C No.
5167 5168 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C Nos.
5170 5172 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C Nos.
5178 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C No.
5179 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C No.
5116 5121 of 2014 Arising out of SLP C Nos.
6520 6521/2009 WITH Civil Appeal Nos.
4469 4471/2010 WITH Civil Appeal No.
11258/2010 WITH Civil Appeal No.
17228/2010 WITH Civil Appeal Nos.
17236 17237/2010 WITH Civil Appeal Nos.
16466/2011 WITH Civil Appeal No.
16137/2011 WITH Civil Appeal No.
The said term has been extracted at page 531, which reads as under We propose to furnish and erect the elevator, installation outlined in the foregoing specifications for the sum of price of two passenger lifts as above duly delivered and erected at site Rs.28,156/ each.
The said situation companypelled the petitioner to prefer the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
After the pronouncement in the said case, the State Government called upon the petitioner to submit returns treating the transaction as sale.
By an order dated 13.2.2008 in Kone Elevator India Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and others1, a three Judge Bench of this Court, while dealing with the writ petition preferred by Kone Elevator India Pvt.
Ltd. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture, supply and installation of lifts involving civil companystruction.
Similarly, in some other States, proceedings were initiated proposing to reopen the assessments that had already been closed treating the transaction as sale.
298/2005, 487/2005, 528/2005, 67/2006, 511/2006, 75/2007, 519/2008, 531/2008, 548/2008, 569/2008, 186/2009, 23/2010, 62/2010, 232/2010, 279/2010, 377/2010, 112/2011, 137/2011, 181/2011, 207/2011, 278/2011, 243/2011, 372/2011, 398/2011, 381/2011, 468/2011, 547/2011, 107/2012, 125/2012, 196/2012, 263/2012, 404/2012, 567/2012, 145/2013, 241/2013, 454/2013, 404/2013, 723/2013, 440/2012, 441/2012, 156/2013, 533/2013, 403/2012, 824/2013, 428/2009, 1046/2013, 1047/2013, 1048/2013, 1049/2013, 1050/2013, 1051/2013 1052/2013, 1098/2013, WITH Civil Appeal Nos.
The said clause was as under 30 within 30 days of the builders accepting the proposal 60 on receipt of shipping documents from the applicants factories and the remaining 10 or any adjustments required on companypletion of erection or in any case within 6 months of delivery of equipment.
The Division Bench, thereafter, numbered clause iv of the Agreement, which related to the payment of price.
On a revision being filed, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh affirmed the view of the tribunal and dismissed the Tax Case Revision filed by the Revenue.
Thereafter, keeping in view the companymonality of the companytroversy in Civil Appeal No.
and himself Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
That apart, in certain cases, appeals have been preferred assailing the original assessment orders or affirmation thereof on the basis of the judgment in Kone Elevators supra .
Facing failure at all levels including the High Court, the appellant preferred an appeal by way of special leave.
