Government needs funds for various purposes and State Value Added Tax/Central Sales Tax is one of the important indirect tax and major source of revenue to State Governments. The general sales tax seems on first consideration to afford the most attractive solution of the revenue problem. In the course of this project, I will examine what led the Parliament to enact a deeming provision which deemed certain transactions in the nature of ‘sale’ to be ‘deemed sale’.
The contract for sale of goods in India is governed by the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which is based on English Sale of Goods Act, 1893. Before the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 the English law relating to the sale of goods was governed almost entirely by the common law, including for the purpose, the law merchant. The Act was amended several times and the amendments were then consolidated in the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which with certain exceptions and savings, repealed and replaced the Sale of Goods Act, 1893. According to Halsbury’s Laws of England, ‘sale’ is the transfer by mutual assent of the ownership of a thing from one person to another for a money price. Where the consideration for the transfer consists of other goods or some other valuable consideration (not being money), the transaction is called exchange or barter, although in certain circumstances it may be treated as one of sale.
The concept of ‘deemed sale’ has led to a confusion which occurs in cases where it is difficult to decide whether a transaction is liable to sales tax or service tax or both. This was precisely the question before the Apex Court in the case of BSNL v. Union of India. It was held that SIM Cards (pre-paid, post-paid), recharge coupons, value added services, mobile telephone
rentals, sharing of infrastructure, are not liable to VAT as sale or deemed sale. It was held in Idea Communication Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Cochin, that they are considered part and parcel of the services provided and the dominant position of the transaction is to provide services and not to sell the material i.e. SIM Cards which on its own but without the service would hardly have any value at all.
Parliament has exclusive powers to make laws with respect to any of matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule to Constitution. State Government has exclusive power to make laws for State with respect to any matter enumerated in List II of the Seventh Schedule.
In India, there are two types of taxes on sale of goods – one levied by the Central Government and the other levied by the State Governments. Entry 92A of Union List contains provision relating to Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, where such sale or purchase takes place in the course of inter-state trade or commerce, whereas Entry 54 of the State List contains provision for tax on sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers except tax on interstate sale or purchase.
Thus, a sale or purchase of goods between two states, i.e., inter-state sale, is governed by the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act). The enactment was made by the Parliament, in exercise of authority conferred upon it under Article 286 and Article 269(2) & (3) of the Constitution of India. Though Central Sales Tax is levied by the Central Government, it is administered by State Governments and tax collected in each State is retained by that Government itself. CST Act defines “sales tax law” as “any law for the time being in force in any State or part thereof which provides for the levy of taxes on the sale or purchase of goods generally or on any specified goods expressly mentioned in that behalf and includes VAT law, and “general sales tax law” means any law for the time being in force in any State or part thereof which provides for the levy of tax on the sale or purchase of goods generally and includes value added tax law”. A sale or purchase of goods within a particular state, i.e., intra-state sale, is governed by the respective State VAT legislation (VAT Acts).
In case of CST or VAT, the taxable event is “sale of goods”. A transaction of sale is subject to tax under CST on the completion of sale, and a mere contract of sale is not a ‘sale’ for purpose of levy of CST. In Sea Customs Act, In re, it was held that in case of sales tax, taxable event is the act of sale. It is not a tax directly on goods. The principle enumerated in State Sales Tax laws states that a sale or purchase of goods is said to take place, when the transfer of property in the existing goods or future goods takes place for consideration of money. The goods have been divided into different categories and different rates of sales tax are charged for different categories of goods.
“Service Tax and VAT (sales tax) are mutually exclusive. In case of a composite contract, VAT cannot be imposed on portion relating to value of service”.
In Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Association v. Union of India, it was observed, ‘for tax to amount to a tax on sale of goods, it must amount to a sale according to the established concept of a sale in the law of contract or more precisely the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Legislation cannot enlarge the definition of sale so as to bring within the ambit of taxation transactions which could not be a sale in law. Even deeming provision of sale does not provide to the contrary’.
However, the taxable event being the “sale of goods”, we must therefore consider the meaning of two words “sale” and “goods”.
In Sale of Goods Act, a contract of sale is defined in Section 4(1) as “a contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a price. There may be a contract of sale between one part- owner and another.”
It further provides for the difference between contract of sale and agreement to sell. “Where under a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer, the contract is called a sale, but where the transfer of the property in the goods is to take place at a future time or subject to some condition thereafter to be fulfilled, the contract is called an agreement to sell”.
Thus it is clear and was also observed in the 61st Law Commission Report (1974) that the ‘passing of property’ plays an important role in the concept of sale of goods under the Act. This requirement being essential, it is well-established that a transaction lacking transfer of property cannot be taxed as a sale by creating a legal fiction in the shape of a deeming clause which seeks to extend the concept of ‘sale’. The Supreme Court had consistently held that the expression “sale of goods” as used in legislative entries in the Constitution and in the Government of India Act, 1935, bears the same meaning as it has in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. In the case of State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co, the Apex Court had an occasion to consider whether in the building contract which was in the nature of composite and indivisible works contract, there was a sale of goods. It was held that there was no sale of goods.
Thus, a hire-purchase agreement was not a sale as no property passes in such transaction until the option to purchase is exercised and other terms of agreement are fulfilled. Several other transactions fell outside the concept of “sale” because of the absence of essential requirement of sale.
After the decision in the case of Gannon Dunkerley & Co., the Government of India also received reports from the state Governments that large scale avoidance of central sales tax was taking place through the device of sending the goods from one state to another. Moreover, the Law Commission of India considered all these matters in its 61st Report and recommended certain amendments to the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court has held various other transactions which resemble, in substance, transactions by way of sales, to be not liable to sales tax. As a result of these decisions, a transaction, in order to be subject to the levy of sales tax under entry 92A of the Union List or entry 54 of the State List, should have the following ingredients, namely, parties competent to contract, mutual assent and transfer of property in goods from one of the parties to the contract to the other party thereto for a price. This position has resulted in scope for avoidance of tax in various ways. An example of this is the practice of inter-State consignment transfers, i.e., transfer of goods from head office or a principal in one State to a branch or agent in another State or vice versa or transfer of goods on consignment account, to avoid the payment of sales tax on inter-State sales under the Central Sales Tax Act.
According to Article 366 (29A) “tax on the sale or purchase of goods includes:
a) a tax on the transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a contact, of property in any goods for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
b) a tax on the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) invoked in the execution of a works contract;
c) a tax on the delivery of goods on hire purchase or any system of payment by instalments;
d) a tax on the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
e) a tax on the supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
f) a tax on the supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
and such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods shall be deemed to be a sale of those goods by the person making the transfer, delivery or supply and a purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer, delivery or supply is made.”
Thus, for the purpose of levy of VAT/CST, ‘sale’ covers (i) Sale as understood in Sale of Goods Act (ii) Deemed sale.
According to CST Act, 1956, “Sale” with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means any transfer of property in goods by one person to another for cash or deferred payment or for any other valuable consideration, and includes:-
a transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, of property in any goods for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
a transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract;
a delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of payment by installments;
a transfer of right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
a supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
a supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration
but does not include a mortgage or hypothecation of or a charge or pledge on goods.”
The first part of the definition of sale in CST Act, 1956, is ‘sale’ as conventionally understood and inclusive part is ‘deemed sale’.
These ‘deemed sale’ as defined in Constitution of India and as incorporated in CST Act and VAT Acts are as follows:
Transfer of property, otherwise than in pursuance of contract, for cash, deferred payment or valuation consideration is ‘sale’. Thus any such transfer will be taxable, even if there is no contract. Compulsory sale is also a ‘sale’.
In New India Sugar Mills v. CST, Bihar, the Supreme Court took the view that in the transfer of controlled commodities in pursuance of a direction under a Control Order, the element of volition by the seller, or mutual assent is absent and, therefore, there is no sale as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
However, in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider its earlier decisions with regard to the liability of transfers of controlled commodities to be charged to sales tax. The Supreme Court held that where there are any statutory compulsions, the statute itself should be treated as supplying the consensus and furnishing the modality of the consensus. In Vishnu Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer, six of the seven Judges concurred in overruling the decision in New India Sugar Mills case.
[Article 366 (29A) (ii)]
Goods involved in ‘works contract’ is deemed sale. The definitions in Haryana VAT Act, Delhi VAT Act, Tamil Nadu VAT Act, Andhra Pradesh VAT Act, Karnataka VAT Act, Punjab VAT Act and West Bengal VAT Act are similar.
The definition in CST Act is clearly very wide and is an inclusive definition. Sales tax is on goods involved in works contract and not on works contract as such. Hence, unless the contract involves transfer of property in goods, the transaction will not be taxable under CST Act.
‘Works Contract’ differed from contract of sale: The works contracts are not ‘normal’ sales. In the normal sale there is a transfer of property in definite or ascertained goods. The goods remain same before and after the delivery of the goods. However, in works contracts the goods before the delivery and after the execution of works contracts are different, many times in different form also. “In a contract of sale, the main object is the transfer of Property and delivery of the possession of Chattel as a Chattel to the buyer, where it is not so, it is a contract of Works & Labour”. If the thing to be delivered has any individual existence before the delivery as the property of the party who is to deliver it, then it is a sale. If the main object of the work undertaken is not the transfer of a Chattel qua Chattel, the contract is one for work and labour.
In normal practice, we can identify many indivisible/composite works contracts namely construction of a building, erection of plant & machinery, processing jobs, job works, repair jobs, electrical fittings, installation of elevators, air conditioners, repairs of vehicles, electro plating, electro-galvanizing, anodizing etc.
No VAT/CST is applicable on the pure labour Jobs (no material of the contractor/job worker is involved). CST and VAT are applicable on the `Material Value” of the Contracts only. In the contracts where the sale of goods and rendering of taxable service are involved, both VAT & service tax is payable on the same contract price subject to the relevant provisions under both the VAT & Service Tax Laws.
Building contract is one, entire and indivisible and it was held prior to the emergence of the concept of deemed sale, that there was no sale of movables (building materials). This and other judicial pronouncements were the reason for the 46th Amendment to the Constitution.
The tailor and garment example clarifies the position. (a) If a person goes to a tailor with cloth and tailor stitches a suit, tailor is doing ‘job work’, even if he uses his own thread and buttons. (b) If a shop has two sections- one for sale of cloth and other for tailoring, and if a person buys cloth and goes to tailor, there is sale of cloth, but work of tailor is still purely of work done and labour supplied. (c) If a person buys readymade garment, it is an out and out sale of goods and hence taxable [tailoring work is not considered as ‘works contract’, it is contract of skill and labour].
A job work/ processing may be a works contract. However, if a job worker/processor does not use his own material, there is no ‘transfer of property in goods involved in works contract’.
It has been clearly stated in BSNL v. Union of India, that value of service cannot be included in price of goods. In State of Jharkhand v. Voltas Ltd., it was confirmed that sales tax can be levied only on value of goods. All charges/amounts are deductible from value of works contract except value of goods sold in execution of works contract, for computing taxable value.
According to Builders Association of India, ‘any State law with respect to deemed sales covered by sub-clauses (a) to (f) of clause (29A) of article 366 must conform to the requirements of article 286 and the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. For purpose of taxation, a deemed sale cannot be distinguished from an ordinary sale’.
[Article 366 (29A)(iii)]
In hire-purchase, possession of goods is delivered by owner to hirer on condition payment of agreed number of instalments. Hirer has option to purchase the goods as per terms of the agreement (usually, a nominal payment is provided at the end of hire period or property passes on payment of last instalment). ‘Sale’ includes a delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of payment by instalments. This is ‘deemed sale’ and is taxable.
Here all the rights except the ownership rights are transferred by the transferor to the transferee so as to enable him to use the goods at his own will to the exclusion of the transferor. To constitute a transaction for the transfer of right to use goods, the transaction must have the following attributes: (i) There must be goods available for delivery; (ii) There must be consensus ad idem as to the identity of the goods; (iii) The transferee should have a legal right to use the goods- consequently all legal consequences of such use including any permissions or licenses required therefore should be available to the transferee; (iv) For the period during which the transferee has such legal right, it has to be for the exclusion to the transferor. This is the necessary concomitant of the plain language of the statute; (v) Having transferred the right to use goods during the period for which it is to be transferred, the owner cannot again transfer the same rights to others.
In Rashtriya Ispat Niham v. CTO, it was held that hire charges are taxable only when full possession and control is given to the hirer. If the owner (person giving equipment) retains effective control over the equipment, it is not ‘transfer of right to use’.
In 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra the Supreme Court ruled that ‘where the goods are available for the transfer of right to use the taxable event on the transfer of right to use any goods is on the transfer which results in right to use and the situs of sale would be the place where the contract is executed and not where the goods are located for use. In cases where goods are not in existence or where there is an oral or implied transfer of the right to use goods, such transactions may be effected by the delivery of goods. In such cases the taxable event would be on the delivery of goods.’
If the goods, namely, shuttering are supplied to the builders for a specified period for the purposes of construction at a consideration; the transferee is in effective control of the shuttering during the period it remains in his possession and therefore, it falls within the extended definition of ‘sale’.
In Industrial Oxygen v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that sales tax can be levied on hire charges for cylinders (as it is ‘transfer of right to use goods’)
Setting up pandal/shamiana including furniture, fixtures etc. is ‘operating lease’ and is taxable as deemed sale and not service.
Recent Case of G.S. Lamba & Sons v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2012):-
The issue regarding levy of sales tax on 'transfer of right to use any goods' was in the limelight recently in view of the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in G.S. Lamba & Sons. The appellants entered into a contract with their customer, Grasim Industries Ltd, for providing transit RMC mixers on hire for a specified period and for a consideration. While the petitioners contended that the contract was for provision of transport service, after hearing the contentions of the counsels for both parties, perusal of various clauses of the contract entered into by the parties and following settled decisions of higher judiciary on the subject, the High Court held that it is subject to levy of sales tax in as much as there is a transfer of right to use the goods viz., transit mixers, by the petitioners in favour of Grasim Industries Ltd.
The Court summarized the following essential requirements of ‘transfer for use’:
i. It is not the transfer of the property in goods, but it is the right to use property in goods;
ii. Article 366 (29-A)(d) read with the latter part of the clause (29-A) which uses the words, "and such transfer, delivery or supply…" would show that the tax is not on the delivery of the goods used, but on the transfer of the right to use goods regardless of when or whether the goods are delivered for use subject to the condition that the goods should be in existence for use;
iii. In the transaction for the transfer of the right to use goods, delivery of goods is not a condition precedent, but the delivery of goods may be one of the elements of the transaction;
iv. The effective or general control does not mean always physical control and, even if the manner, method, modalities and the time of the use of goods is decided by the lessee or the customer, it would be under the effective or general control over the goods; and
v. The approvals, concessions, licences and permits in relation to goods would also be available to the user of goods, even if such licences or permits are in the name of owner (transferor) of the goods, and
vi. During the period of contract, exclusive right to use goods along with permits, licences etc, vests in the lessee."
The Finance Act, 2008 has levied service tax on such services provided in relation to right to use of tangible goods, including machinery, equipment and appliances, for use, with no legal right of possession and effective control. Such transaction not being treated as deemed sale of goods, is treated as service.
Whether a transaction is a transfer of the right to use the goods or a service is essentially a question of fact which has to be determined in each case having regard to the terms of the contract.
[Article 366 (29A)(v)]
Sale includes supply of goods by an unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration.
There cannot be a sale or supply of goods by seller to himself. Thus, there is no sale when goods are sold to members of a club or a hostel run by members themselves. In Associated Hotels of India case the Supreme Court held that there is no sale involved in the supply of food or drink by a hotelier to a person lodged in the hotel. However, in the light of present position, this is ‘deemed sale’ and is taxable.
A new problem had arisen in 1978 as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi. Overruling the decision of the Delhi High Court, the Court held in the above case that ‘service of meals whether in a hotel or restaurant does not constitute a sale of food for the purpose of levy of sales tax but must be regarded as the rendering of a service in the satisfaction of a human need or ministering to the bodily want of human beings. It would not make any difference whether the visitor to the restaurant is charged for the meal as a whole or according to each dish separately’.
Now, according to CST Act and VAT laws, sale includes supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration.
Sale in canteen to workmen is also taxable: It was held in Delta Jute Industries v. CTO, that supply of food to workmen at a price is a ‘sale’ and taxable.
Thus, the 46th Constitutional Amendment widened the horizon of the term ‘sale’ which was conventionally understood as transfer of complete property in goods for valuable consideration. Now sales tax is levied on both sale as envisaged in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 as well as that envisaged in Article 366 (29A) of the Constitution of India and the provisions as incorporated in Central Sales Tax Act and State VAT Acts. Now transactions in the nature of sale are also liable to sales tax like compulsory transfer, goods involved in works contract, right to use goods, transfer among members of unincorporated association, supply of food articles and hire purchase. This leads to confusion as to whether certain transactions are liable to both Sales as well as Service Tax and leads to escalation of prices.
Now we await the implementation of Goods and Services Tax, which is a comprehensive tax levy on manufacture, sale and consumption of goods and services at a national level which aims to remove all doubts and multiple layers of taxation existing currently. This will benefit individuals as prices are likely to come down.
# Arthur A. Ballantine, The General Sales Tax Is Not the Way Out, Vol. 95, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Taxation and Public Expenditures (May, 1921), p. 214
# Justice K Kannan, The Sale of Goods Act and the Indian Partnership Act by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla, (Nagpur LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, 10th Ed., 2012), p. 2
# Halsbury’s Laws of England, 41, Sale of Goods and Supply of Services, (4th Ed., 2005 Reissue), p. 13
# Kirkness (Inspector of Taxes) v. John Hudson & Co Ltd., (1955) AC 696
# Cf Beecham Foods Ltd v. North Supplies (Edmonton) Ltd., (1959) 2 All ER 336
# Read v. Hutchinson, (1813) 3 Camp 352
# If the goods are to be paid for by money and other goods on which a fixed value is put, the contract may be treated as one of sale for the aggregate sum as the price: Hands v. Burton, (1808) 9 East 349
# BSNL v. Union of India, (2006) 145 STC 91 (SC)
# Idea Communication Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Cochin, (2011) 12 SCC 608
# Article 246(1), Constitution of India
# Article 246(3), Constitution of India
# Section 2(i), Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
# Tata Iron and Steel Co. (TISCO) v. S.R. Sarkar, AIR 1961 SC 65
# Sea Customs Act, In re, AIR 1963 STC 437
# Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, Systematic Approach to Indirect Taxes, (New Delhi: Bharat Law House Pvt. Ltd., 6th Ed., 2006)
# Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (2008) 12 STT 392
# Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Association v. Union of India, 2004 AIR SCW 3991
# Per Section 2(7) of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, "goods" means every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money; and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale.
# Article 366(12) of the Constitution of India gives an inclusive definition of “goods” which “includes all materials, commodities, and articles”
# Section 4(1), Sale of Goods Act, 1930
# Section 4(3), Sale of Goods Act, 1930
# 61st Report on “Certain problems connected with the Power of the States to levy a tax on the sale of goods and with the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956”, Law Commission of India, May, 1974, Para 1.3
# Ibid, Para 1.5A
# State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co, AIR 1958 SC 560 ; New India Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1207 ; Bhopal Sugar Industries v. S.T.O., AIR 1964 SC 1037
# State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co, Supra note 24
# According to Section 2(c) of Hire-Purchase Act, 1972, “‘hire-purchase agreement’ means an agreement under which goods are let on hire and under which the hirer has an option to purchase them in accordance with the terms of the agreement and includes an agreement under which-
(i) possession of goods is delivered by the owner thereof to a person on condition that such persons pays the agreed amount in periodical installments, and
(ii) the property in the goods is to pass to such person on the payment of the last of such installments, and
(iii) such person has a right to terminate the agreement at any time before the property so passes.”
# K.L. Johar & Co. v. Dy, C.T.O., AIR 1965 SC 1082
# 61st Report on “Certain problems connected with the Power of the States to levy a tax on the sale of goods and with the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956”, Law Commission of India, May, 1974
# Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution (Forty-Sixth Amendment) Bill, 1981 which was enacted as the Constitution (Forty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1982
# Article 366 (29A), Constitution of India
# Section 2(g), Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
# V.S. Datey, Indirect Taxes, (Taxmann Publications P. Ltd.: 24th Ed., 2010), p. 800
# Indian Steel and Wire Products v. State of Madras, AIR 1968 SC 478 (Constitution Bench)
# New India Sugar Mills v. CST, Bihar, AIR1963 SC 1207
# Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2478
# Vishnu Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1978 SC 449
# Section 2(ja) of CST Act defines ‘works contract’ as “a contract for carrying out any work which includes assembling, construction, building, altering, manufacturing, processing, fabricating, erection, installation fitting out, improvement, repair or commissioning of any movable or immovable property.”
# V.S. Datey, Indirect Taxes, (Taxmann Publications P. Ltd.: 24th Ed., 2010), p. 806
# As per provisions of Sale of Goods Act, 1930
# Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1984) 55 STC 314 SC
# Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) 119 STC 533 (SC)
# State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co, Supra note 24
# V.S. Datey, Indirect Taxes, (Taxmann Publications P. Ltd.: 24th Ed., 2010), p. 802
# BSNL v. Union of India, Supra note 8
# State of Jharkhand v. Voltas Ltd., (2007) 7 STR 106
# Builders Association of India v. Union of India, (1989) SCALE (2) 768
# V.S. Datey, Indirect Taxes, (Taxmann Publications P. Ltd.: 24th Ed., 2010), p. 804
# BSNL v. Union of India, Supra note 8
# Rashtriya Ispat Niham v. CTO, (1990) 77 STC 182 (AP HC DB)
# 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 6 SC 12
# Aggarwal Brothers v. State of Haryana, (1999) 113 STC 317 (SC)
# Industrial Oxygen v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1992) 86 STC 538 (AP HC); view confirmed in State of Orissa v. Asiatic Gases, (2007) 7 VST 531 (SC)
# Sri Jay Kumar Bardia v. State of Assam, (2007) 5 VST 210 (Gua HC)
# G.S. Lamba & Sons v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2012-TIOL-49-HC-AP-CT
# State of Punjab v. Associated Hotels of India, AIR 1972 SC 1131
# Northern India Caterers Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 1591
# Delta Jute Industries v. CTO, (2001) 121 STC 186 (WBTT) ; Similar view was given in Tata Iron v. State of Orissa, (1975) 35 STCC 195; Tata Iron v. State of Bihar, (1985) 58 STC 302 (Pat); BRPL Canteen Coop Soc v. State of Assam, (2003) 130 STC 138.