M/S. KONE ELEVATOR INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(SC)-2014-5-11
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
May 06,2014
M/S. Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd.
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
PATIIAIK AND CO VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]HINDUSTAN SHIPYARD LIMITED VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHARA PRADESH VS. KONE ELEVATORS INDIA LTD [OVERRULED]
Cited Judgements :-
DINAKAR PROCESS VS. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [LAWS(APH)-2015-7-12] [REFERRED TO]PAINTERIOR (INDIA) VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-266] [REFERRED TO]
STERLING AND WILSON PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING THEIR REGISTERED OFFICE AT 9TH FLOOR, UNIVERSAL MAJESTIC, GAUTAM NAGAR, P.L. LOKHANDE MARG, GHATKOPAR MANKHURD LINK ROAD, CHEMBUR (W), MUMBAI-400 043 VS. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL & MEDIUM ENTERPRISES [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-152] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDRA COACH FACTORY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. C T O SPL CIRCLE-3 [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-2-287] [REFERRED TO]
K.RAGHU RAMA KRISHNA RAJU VS. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2015-1-125] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. PRO LAB [LAWS(SC)-2015-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX U.P. LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-91] [REFERRED TO]
M/S OTIS ELEVATORS COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. LUCKNOW VS. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-412] [REFERRED TO]
NBCC (INDIA) LTD.. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-5-39] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE VS. M/S. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-123] [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [LAWS(CE)-2014-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
THYSEENKRUPP ELEVATOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [LAWS(KAR)-2018-4-288] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA VS. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD [LAWS(SC)-2015-8-34] [REFERRED TO]
SEEMA JAGDISH PATIL VS. NATIONAL HI-SPEED RAIL [LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-28] [REFERRED TO]
DUROLAC VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-5-30] [REFERRED TO]
FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, REP , BY ITS CHIEF FINA VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(MAD)-2017-8-241] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-52] [REFERRED TO]
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY INDIA LTD. VS. COMMR. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [LAWS(ALL)-2018-6-37] [REFERRED TO]
PRASAR BHARATI VS. EISA LIFTS PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-361] [REFERRED TO]
VIVA HIGHWAYS LTD. VS. MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-69] [REFERRED TO]
TATA MOTORS LTD VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(SPL) [LAWS(SC)-2023-5-78] [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD VS. ELIXIR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2023-3-151] [REFERRED TO]
MIOT HOSPITALS LTD VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2020-5-73] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. BHARAT PEST CONTROL [LAWS(SC)-2018-1-124] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. AGRAWAL COLOUR ADVANCE PHOTO SYSTEM VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(MPH)-2020-3-292] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
(2.)By an order dated 13.2.2008 in Kone Elevator India Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and others,2010 14 SCC 788, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while dealing with the writ petition preferred by Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. along with Special Leave Petitions, noted that the question raised for consideration in the said cases is whether manufacture, supply and installation of lifts is to be treated as "sale" or "works contract", and a three-Judge Bench, in State of A.P. v. Kone Elevators (India) Ltd., 2005 3 SCC 389, had not noticed the decisions rendered by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd., 1969 1 SCC 567, State of Rajasthan and others v. Nenu Ram, 1970 26 STC 268 and Vanguard Rolling Shutters and Steel Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1977 2 SCC 250 and perceiving the manifest discord, thought it appropriate that the controversy should be resolved by the larger Bench. Thereafter, keeping in view the commonality of the controversy in Civil Appeal No. 6285 of 2010 and other Special Leave Petitions, they were tagged with the originally referred matters. Thus, the matters are before us.
(3.)The seminal controversy which has emerged in this batch of matters is whether a contract for manufacture, supply and installation of lifts in a building is a "contract for sale of goods" or a "works contract". Needless to say, in case of the former, the entire sale consideration would be taxable under the sales tax or value added tax enactments of the State legislatures, whereas in the latter case, the consideration payable or paid for the labour and service element would have to be excluded from the total consideration received and sales tax or value added tax would be charged on the balance amount.
(2.)By an order dated 13.2.2008 in Kone Elevator India Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and others,2010 14 SCC 788, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while dealing with the writ petition preferred by Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. along with Special Leave Petitions, noted that the question raised for consideration in the said cases is whether manufacture, supply and installation of lifts is to be treated as "sale" or "works contract", and a three-Judge Bench, in State of A.P. v. Kone Elevators (India) Ltd., 2005 3 SCC 389, had not noticed the decisions rendered by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd., 1969 1 SCC 567, State of Rajasthan and others v. Nenu Ram, 1970 26 STC 268 and Vanguard Rolling Shutters and Steel Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1977 2 SCC 250 and perceiving the manifest discord, thought it appropriate that the controversy should be resolved by the larger Bench. Thereafter, keeping in view the commonality of the controversy in Civil Appeal No. 6285 of 2010 and other Special Leave Petitions, they were tagged with the originally referred matters. Thus, the matters are before us.
(3.)The seminal controversy which has emerged in this batch of matters is whether a contract for manufacture, supply and installation of lifts in a building is a "contract for sale of goods" or a "works contract". Needless to say, in case of the former, the entire sale consideration would be taxable under the sales tax or value added tax enactments of the State legislatures, whereas in the latter case, the consideration payable or paid for the labour and service element would have to be excluded from the total consideration received and sales tax or value added tax would be charged on the balance amount.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.