MANU/SC/0887/2015
True Court CopyTM English
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 6770 of 2004, 4468 of 2006, 2798, 4234, 4281 of 2009, 4893, 5841, 6084, 8477 of 2011, 732, 1627 of 2012, 6429, 6430 and 6434 of 2015
Decided On: 20.08.2015
Appellants: Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Kerala and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman JUDGMENT
Rohinton Fali Nariman, J.
1. This group of appeals is by both Assessees and the revenue and concerns itself with whether service tax can be levied on indivisible works contracts prior to the introduction, on 1st June, 2007, of the Finance Act, 2007 which expressly makes such works contracts liable to service tax.
2. It all began with State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (Madras) Ltd. MANU/SC/0152/1958 : 1959 SCR 379. A Constitution Bench of this Court held that in a building contract which was one and entirely indivisible, there was no sale of goods and it was not within the competence of the State Provincial Legislature to impose a tax on the supply of materials used in such a contract, treating it as a sale. The above statement was founded on the premise that a works contract is a composite contract which is inseparable and indivisible, and which consists of several elements which include not only a transfer of property in goods but labour and service elements as well. Entry 48 of List II to the 7th Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935 was what was under consideration before this Court in Gannon Dunkerley's case. It was observed that the expression "sale of goods" in that entry has become "nomen juris" and that therefore it has the same meaning as the said expression had in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. In other words, the essential ingredients of a sale of goods, namely, that there has to be an agreement to sell movables for a price, and property must pass therein pursuant to such agreement, are both preconditions to the taxation power of the States under the said entry. This Court, after considering a large number of judgments, ultimately came to the following conclusion:
To sum up, the expression "sale of goods" in Entry 48 is a nomen juris, its essential ingredients being an agreement to sell movables for a price and property passing therein pursuant to that agreement. In a building contract which is, as in the present case, one, entire and indivisible--and that is its norm, there is no sale of goods, and it is not within the competence of the Provincial Legislature under Entry 48 to impose a tax on the supply of the materials used in such a contract treating it as a sale." (at page 425)1
3. The Law Commission of India in its 61st Report elaborately examined the law laid down in Gannon Dunkerley's case and suggested that the relevant entry contained in the 7th Schedule to List II to the Constitution of India-Entry 54-could either be amended; or a fresh entry in the State List could be added; or Article 366 which is a definition clause could be amended so as to widen the definition of "sale", and include therein indivisible composite works contracts. Having regard to the said