N.V. Shenoy and Co. vs Sales Tax Officer and Others

T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J.—There is no merit in this writ petition. Petitioner challenges exhibit P3 by which the Cochin Shipyard directed that he should produce a certificate from the sales tax authority failing which deduction will be made at 6 per cent towards sales tax. If really the petitioner is not liable to pay any sales tax because no transfer of property in goods is involved in the works contract, it is for him to satisfy the Cochin Shipyard itself regarding the same and I am sure the awarder, namely the Cochin Shipyard will take that into account in deciding whether they could deduct any amount towards sales tax. It has been repeatedly held by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court that the question of payment of tax in a works contract will arise only if there is a transfer of property in goods involved in the matter of execution of the contract. If there is no transfer of property in goods from the contractor to the awarder, needless to say no question of liability to pay any amount by way of tax will arise. If, therefore, the contracts, namely exhibits P1 and P2, do not involve any transfer of property in goods from the petitioner to the Cochin Shipyard Ltd., the latter need not make any deduction by way of tax. That question whether any transfer of property in goods is involved is a matter within the knowledge of the parties, namely, the petitioner and the Cochin Shipyard Ltd., and, therefore, it is a matter which the petitioner should take up before the second respondent itself in relation to their attempt to make deduction of 6 per cent of the contract amount by way of sales tax. I am sure, if such a claim is made by the petitioner with the Cochin Shipyard Ltd., they will necessarily look into the question and make deduction only if there is any transfer of property in goods involved from the petitioner to the Cochin Shipyard Ltd. That is a matter which the petitioner should take up before the second respondent. Petitioner cannot, therefore, call upon this Court to make a blanket declaration in relation to their contracts with the second respondent and seek a blanket direction as against recovery of any amount by way of sales tax.

The original petition is, therefore, dismissed subject to the above observations.