Holding

The turnover of the subcontractors is not to be added to the main contractor's turnover; the transaction amounts to a single deemed sale.

Summary

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (L&T) executed works contracts in Andhra Pradesh and subcontracted portions to registered VAT dealers. The State of Andhra Pradesh assessed tax on L&T by adding the turnover of the subcontractors, treating the arrangement as two deemed sales – one from the subcontractor to L&T and another from L&T to the contractee. L&T contended that under Section 4(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the taxable event is the transfer of property in goods at the time of incorporation, which occurs only when the subcontractor incorporates the goods, making the subcontractor the sole dealer effecting the deemed sale. The Supreme Court held that there is a single deemed sale, the turnover of the subcontractors should not be added to L&T’s turnover, and that treating it as two sales would lead to double taxation and violate constitutional provisions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the turnover of subcontractors is liable to be added to the turnover of the main contractor under Section 4(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
Whether the transaction constitutes two deemed sales (sub‑contractor to main contractor and main contractor to contractee) or a single deemed sale.
Whether inclusion of subcontractors' turnover would violate Article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution and Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005s. Section 4(7)(a), s. Section 7(a)
Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005s. Rule 17
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 19(1)(g), s. Article 265, s. Article 366(29A)(b)

Subjects

VATdeemed saleworks contractturnoverdouble taxationSection 4(7)Rule 17sub‑contractorconstitutional law

Judgment

844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 12 S.C. R.

A Dismissing the appeal, the Court
~ELD: 1.1. Section 4(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Value
Added Tax Act, 2005 is a Code by itself. It begins with a
non-obstante clause. It sta!es that every dealer executing
works contract shall pay tax on the value of go.ods at the
8 time of incorporation of such goods in the works execi1ted
at the rates applicable to the goods under the Act. Section \-
4(7)(a) of the 2005 Act indicates that. the taxable event is
the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution
of a works contract and the said transfer of property in
C such goods takes place when the goods are incorporated
in the works. [Para 16] 1-

The State of Madras v. Mis. Gannon.Dunkerley and Co.
(Madras) Ltd.(1958) 9 STC 353; Mis. Gannon Dunkerley and
Co. and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan. and Ors. (1993) 88 STC
0
204 - referred to.
1.2. The sub-contractors. of 'L& T were registered
dealers. None of them were u~registered. Under s.4(7)(a) .
read with Rule 17(1)(g) of APYA1 Rules, 2005, where VAT
E dealer awards any part of the contract to a sub-contractor,
such sub-contractor shall issue a tax invoice ·to the
contractor for the value of. the goods at the time of
incorporation in such sub-contract. The tax charged ih
the tax invoice issued by the sub-contractor shall be
F accounted by him in his returns. Therefore, the scheme
indicates that there is a "deemed sale" by the dealer
executing the work, i.e., the sub-contractor. It is only the .
sub-contractor who effects transfer of property in goo.ds
as no goods vests in the respondent company
G (contractor) so as to be the subject-matter of a retransfer.
By virtue of Article 366 (29A)(b) of the Constitution, once.
the work is assigned by the contractor (L& T), the only
transfer of -property' in goods is by the sub-contractor
who is a registered dealer and who c!a!ms to hai1e paid
taxes under the Act on the goods involved in the execution
H
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ORS. v. LARSEN & 845
TOURBO LTD. & ORS.
-...(
of the works. Once the work is assigned by L& T to its A
sub-contractor(s), L& T ceases to execute the works
contract in the sense contemplated by Article 366(29A)(b)
because property passes by accretion and there is no
property in goods with the contractor which is capable of
a retransfer, whether as goods or in some other form. B
[Para 16] [857 C-H]
~·
Builders Association of India and Ors. v. Union of India
and Ors. (1989) 73 STC 370 - relied on.
1.3. Even if there is no privity of contract between c
the contractee and the sub- contractor, that would not do
away the principle of transfer of property by the sub-
contractor by employing the same on the property
belonging to the contractee. This reasoning is based on
~ the principle of accretion of property in goods. It is subject
to the contract to the contrary. Thus, in such a case the
D
I
work, executed by a sub-contractor, results in a single
~ transaction and not as multiple transactions. This
reasoning is also borne out by s.4(7) which refers to value
of goods at the time of incorporation in the works
executed. If the argument of the Department is to be E
accepted it would result in plurality of deemed sales which
would be contrary to Article 366(29A)(b) of the
Constitution. Moreover, it may result in double taxation
which may make the said 2005 Act vulnerable to challenge
as violative of Articles 14, 19 (1 )(g) and 265 of the F
--+· Constitution of India. [Para 19] [858 E-H, 859 A]
2. After the impugned judgment, the Department has
amended Rule 17 of the APVAT Rules, 2005 by
Government Order dated 20.8.2007. It is now clarified that
G
_,., where a VAT dealer awards any part of the contract to a
~ J registered sub-contractor, no tax shall be payable on the
consideration paid for the sub-contract. Therefore, the
principle to be adopted in all such cases is that the
property in the goods would pass to the owner/contractee
H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 12 S.C.R.

A on its incorporation in the works executed. This principle 'r
finds place in sub-section 7(a) of s. 4 of the said 2005 Act.
[Para 20] [859 8-D]
Case Law Reference
I;:-
B (1958) 9 STC 353 referred to Para 13
(1989) 73 STC 370 relied on Para 14
(1993) 88 src 204 · referred to Para 15
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5239
c of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 12.10.2006 of
..
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition
No. 12124 of 2066
l
Dhruv Agarwal, Manoj Saxena and T.V. George for the
D
Appellants. !
Harish N. Salve, Sameer Parekh, Sanad Ramakrishnan,
..,l..
Rukmini Bobde (for M/s. Parekh & Co.), Bina Madhaven and
Manish Kumar (for M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co.) theto;
E Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.H. KAPADIA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Respondent ~ Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. (L&T) is engaged '
F , in executing civil, mechanical and other building works ""
throughout India including Andhra Pradesh. During the relevant
period it entered into contracts with its clients (contractees)
whose names are given in the annexure to the original writ
petition filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Under the
G Contract, L&T, with the consent of the contractee, was permitted
to assign parts of construction work to the sub-contractors Whose
names are also given in the list annexed to the original writ
petition filed in the High Court. Accordingly, L&T placed orders
on such sub-contractors for agreed price, inclusive of applicable
H taxes. The overall work was done under the supervision of the
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ORS. v. LARSEN & 847
TOURBO LTD. & ORS. [S.H. KAPADIA, J.]

consultants nominated by the contractee. The sub-contractors A
were registered dealers. The sub-contractors purchased goods .
and chattel like bricks, cement and steel and, where necessary,
supply and erect equipments such as lifts, hoist, etc. The
materials were brought to site. They remc,:iined the property of
the sub-contractors. The site was occupied by sub-contractors. B
The materials were erected by the sub-contractors.
3. L&T was served with a notice dated 10.3.06 in which
it was alleged that the Company had failed to disclose the sub-
contractors' turnover of Rs.111,53,05,835/- in the returns filed
upto 31.1.06 for the period 1.4.05 to 31.1.06. In reply, L& T , C
submitted that under Section 4(7)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh
Value Added Tax Act, 2005 ("2005 Act", for short) there was no
provision for inclusion of sub-contractors' turnover in the turnover
filed by the Com-pany; that, the scheme of the said Act at the
relevant time did not contemplate for the declaration of sub- D
contractors' turnover and, that, under the scheme of the said
2005 Act the sub-contractor Nas a "dealer".
4. In this case the sub-contractors were registered dealers.
This point is not in dispute. It was submitted by the Company E
before the Assessing Authority that the transfer of property in
goods, as effected by the .sub-contract, resulted in direct sale
to the contractee and consequently it did not involve multiple
sales either in favour of the main contractor or in favour of the
contractee. By the said reply, the Company specifically stated
that it did not claim 'input tax credit' (ITC) on the tax invoice of F
sub-contractors. Accordingly, the Company objected to the
proposal made in the show cause notice by the A.O. to recompute
the tax liability adopting a uniform rate of 12.5% on the sub-
contractors' turnover.
G
5. The objections raised by the Company in its reply to the
show cause notice were rejected by the A.O. and the Company
was consequently served with an assessment order dated.
31.5.06 raising an additional tax payment of Rs.9,75,89,261/.
6. Aggrieved by the assessmeqt order dated 31.5.06, for H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 12 S.C.R.
..
y
A the aforestated .period, the Company moved the Andhra
Pradesh High Court ~ide Writ Petition No.12124 of 2006 and
challenged the following conclusion of the A.O. made-in the
assessment order dated 31.5.06 which reads as under:
"Main contractor is having an order from the contractee to
B purchase and sell goods in the course of execution of
\_
works contract and for that matter, the main contractor
should acquire that goods from the sub-c~ntractor, by way
of deemed sale as.well as the main contra~tor, by way of
deemed sale as well as the main contractor should transfer ;
c ~he value of the property by way of deemed sales to the
contractee. The principles whatsoever apply to a sale in
generafsquarely apply to a deemed sale also. Therefore,
herein cannot question the legislative wisdom in framing
the· scheme of the Act giving a similar treatment to a
D deemed sale that is given to a sale in general. ft being so,
there are two deemed sales one from main contractor to
contractee and the other frnm sub-contractor to the main ~
. contractor in the event of contractee not having any privity
of contract with sub-contractor."
E (ernphasis supplied by us)
7. The question which needs con$ideration ·in this civil
appeal is: whether the A.O. was right in his conclusion, namely,
that in this case there were two deemed sales, one from main
F contractor to the c1.1ntractee and the other from the sub-
contractors to the main contractor as there was no privity of ~
contract b~tween the contractee and the sub-contractors.
•!·
8. To answer the above issue we need to quote relevant
provisions of the 2005 Act which reads as under:
G
"CHAPTER- I _...~ .. ·- +-• <•
..,_ PRELIMINARY
SECTION 2 ·- Definitions.-

H In this Act, unless th.e context otherwise requires:-·
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ORS. v. LARSEN & 849
TOURBO LTD. & ORS. [S.H. KAPADIA, J.]

(10) 'Dealer' means any person who carries on the business A
of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods or delivering
goods on hire purchase or on any system of payment by
instalments, or carries on or executes any works contract
involving supply or use of material directly or otherwise,
whether for cash or for deferred payment, or for commission,
remuneration or other valuable consideration, and includes:
8

(a) a company, a Hindu undivided family or any society
including a co-operative society, dub, firm or association
which carries on such business;
(b) a society including a co-operative society, club, firm or c
association which buys goods from, or sells, supplies
or distributes goods to" its members;
(c) a casual trader, as herein before defined;

- (d) arw person, who may, in the course of business of D
running a restaurant or an eating house or a hotel by
whatever name called, sells or supplies by way of or as
-l
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;
E
(e) any person, who may transfer the right to the use of any
goods for any purpose whatsoever whether or not for a
specified period in the course of business to any other
person;
(f) a commission agent, a broker, a· delcredere agent, an F
auctioneer or any other mercantile agent, by whatever
name called, who carries on the business of buying,
selling, supplying or distributing goods on behalf of any
principal;
(16) 'Goods' means all kinds of movable property other than G
~ ,
~ newspapers, actionable claims, stocks, shares and securities,
and includes all materials, articles and commodities including
the goods as goods or ih some other form, involved in the
execution of a works contract or those goods used or to be
used in the construction, fitting out. improvement or repair of
H
850 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12. S.C.R.

A movable or immovable property and also includes all 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;
(19) 'Input tax' means the tax paid or payable under the Act by
B a VAT dealer to another VAT dealer on the purchase of goods
in the course of business;
'~
(28) 'Sale' with all its grammatical variations and cognate
expressions means every transfer of the property in goods
(whether as such goods or in any other form in pursuance of
c a contract or otherwise) by one person to another in the course
· of trade or business, for cash, or for deferred payment, or for
any other valuable consideration or in. the supply or distribution
of goods by a society (including a co-operative society}, club,
firm or association to its members, but does not include a
D mortgage, hypothecation or pledge of, or a charge on goods.
Explanation VJ:- Whenever any goods are supplied or used
in the eXfi!CUtion Of a works contract, there shall be deemed J...
to be a transfer of property in such goods, whether or not the
value of the goods so supplied or used in the course of
E execution of such works contract is shown separately and
whether or not the value of such ·goods or material can be
separated from the contract for the service and the work
done.
(29) 'Sale Price' means:-
F (a) the total amount set out in the tax invoice or bill of sale; or
(b) the total amount of consideration for the sale or purchase
of goods as may be determined by the assessing authority,
if the tax invoice or bill of sale does not set out correctly the
amount for which the goods are sold; or
G
(c) if there is no tax invoice or bill of sale, the total amount ~
I ~~
charged as the consideration for the sale or purchase of
goods by a VAT dealer or TOT dealer either directly or through
another, on his own account or on account of others, whether
u such consideration be cash, deferred payment or any other
! I
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ORS. v. LARSEN & 851
TOURBO LTD. & ORS. [S.H. KAPADIA, J.)

thing of value and shall include: A
( i) the value of any goods as determined by the assessing
authority:
(a) to have been used or supplied by the dealer in the
course of execution of the works contract; or
B
_,; (b) to have been delivered by the dealer on hire
purchase or any other system of payment by
instalments; or
(c) to have been supplied or distributed by a society
including a Co-operative Society, Club, firm or c
association to its members, where the cost of
such goods is not separately shown or indicated
by the dealer and where the cost of such goods is
separately shown or indicated by the dealer, the
cost of such goods as shown or indicated; D
t
(ii) any other sum charged by the dealer for anything done
~ in respect of goods sold at the time of, or before, the
delivery of the goods;
(iii) any other sum charged by the dealer, whatever be the
description, name or object thereof; E
(35) 'Tax invoice' means a sale invoice containing such details
as may be prescribed and issued by a VAT dealer to another
VAT dealer;

(38) 'Taxable turnover' means the aggregate of sale prices of F
all taxable goods;
(39) 'Total turnover' means the aggregate of sale prices of all
goods, taxable and exempted, sold at all places of business
of the dealer in the State, including transactions falling under
Section 8 of the Act and under Section 6A of the Central Sales G
Tax Act, 1956 and shall also include the gross consideration
received or receivable towards execution of works cohtract;
(45) 'Works Contract' includes any agreement for carrying
out for cash or for deferred payment or for any other valuable
consideration, the building construction, manufacture, H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 12 S.C.R.

y
A processing, fabrication, erection, installation, laying, fitting out,
improvement, modification, repair or commissioning of any
movable or immovable property;
CHAPTER - Ill

B INCIDENCE, LEVY AND CALCULATION OF TAX··

Section 4 - Charge to tax.- )..__

(7) Notwithstanding anything contained ih the Act;-
(a) Every dealer executing works contracts shall pay tax on
c the value of.goods at thedime of incorporation of such goods.
in the works exec1,Jted at the rates applicable to the goods
· under the Act:
Provided that where· accounts are not maintained to
determine the correct value of goods at the time of
D incorporation, such dealer shall pay tax at the rate of
12.5% on the total consideration received or receivable
subject to such deductions as may be prescribed; ~.

(b) Any dealer executing any works contra.cts for the
Government or local authority may opt to pay tax by way of
E composition at the rate of 4% on the total value of the contract
executed for the Government or local authority 1 [***];
·(c) Any dealer exeGutlng works contra"cts· other than for
Gqy~rnrnent and local authority may opt to pay tax by\Vay of
composition at the rate of 4% 2 [***] of the total consideration
F received or receivable for any specific contract subject to
such conditions as may be prescribed;
(d) Any dealer engaged in construction and selling of residential
apartments, houses, buildings or commerciaI complexes may
opt to pay tax by way of composition at thE! rate of 4%of
G twenty five percent (25%) of the cons.i.~eration received or
·~
receivable or the market value (i.xed for the purpose of stamp
duty whichever is higher ~ubject to such conditions as may '
be prescribed
3 [e) Any dealer having opted for composition under 4 [Clauses
H ' '
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH .ORS. v. LARSEN & 853
TOURBO LTD. & ORS. [S.H. KAPADIA, J.)
"'""(
(b) or (c) or (d)], purchases or receives any goods from outside A
the State or India or from any dealer other than a Value Added
Tax dealer in the State and uses such goods in the execution
of the works contracts, such dealer shall pay tax on such
goods at the rates applicable to them under the Act anq the
value of such goods shall be excluded for the purpose of
computation of turnover on which tax by way of composition · 8
at the rate of four percent (4%) is payable.]
5 [f)) Any dealer who is liable to be registered for TOT and

executing any works contracts shall pay tax at the rate of 1%
on total value of the goods at the time of incorporation of the
goods used:
c
Provided that where accounts are not maintained to
determine the correct value of the goods at the time of
incorporation, such dealers shall pay tax at the rate of
1% on the total consideration received or receivable
D
subject to such deductions as may be prescribed.
~ 6 [***]
7
[(g} notwithstanding any thing contained in clauses (a) to (f}
above, no tax shall be leviable on the turnover of transfer of
property in goods whether as goods or in some other form E
involved in the execution of works contract, if such transfer
from the contractor to the contractee constituted a sale in the
course of interstate trade or commerce under section 3 or a
sale outside the State under section 4, or a sale in the course
of import or export under section 5 of the Central Sales Tax F
~ Act, 1956;
(h) no tax ehall be payable under 8 [clauses (a) or (b) or (c)
ofj this sub-section on the turnover relating to amo1.mts paid
to a sub-contractor as consideration for the execution of works
contract whether wholly or partly subject to the production 9f G
-··~.
.• ,. proof that such sub- contractor is registered as a VAT dealer
under the Act and the turnover of such amount is included in
the return prescribed filed by such sub-contractor.]
8
[(i) no tax shall be payable under clause (d) of this sub-
section on the turnover relating to the consideration received H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
'(
A as a sub-contr(;3ctor if the main contract9r opted to pay tax l;>y
way of composition subject to the condition that the sub-
contractor shall pay tax in respect of any goods purchased or
received from outside the $tate of Andhra Pradesh or from
any person other than a Value Added Tax dealer in the State
on the Value of such goods at the rates applicable t0 them
B
under the Act.] ~
9. We also quote relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh
Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (as it stood at the relevant time)
which read as under:
c "RULE 17. Treatment of works contracts. - ..
(1) Treatment of VAT dealer executing works contract: -
(a) In the case of contracts not covered by sub-rules (2),
(3) and (4) of ~his rule, the VAT dealer shall pay tax on the
D value of the goods at the time the goods are incorporated
in the work at the rates applicable to the goods; J__

(c) If such VAT dealer awards any part of the contract to
a sub-contractor, such sub-contractor shall issue a tax
invoice to the contractor for the value of the goods at the
E
time of incorporation in such sub-contract. The tax charged
in the tax invoic:;e issued by the sub--contractor $hall be
accounted by him in his returns ..
(e) Subject to clause (d) the following amounts are allowed
F as deductions from the total consideration received or
receivable for arriving the value of the goods at the time
of Incorporation, ~
(i) Labour charges tor execution of the works;
(ii) Charges for planning, designing and architect's fees;
1-- "
(iii) Charges for obtaining on hire or otherwise machinery
' -
and tools used for the execution of the works contract;
(iv) Cost of consumables such as water, electricity, fuel.
etc., used in the execution,of the works contract, the
H
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ORS. v. LARSEN & 855
TOURBO LTD. & ORS. fS.H. KAPADIA, J.]

property in which is not transferred in the course of A
execution of a works contract;
(v) Cost of establishment of the contractor to the extent
it is relatable to· supply of labour and services;
(vi) Other similar expenses relatable to supply of labour B
and services;
(vii) Profit earned by the contractor to the extent it is
relatable to supply of labour and services;"
1O. We also quote Article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution C
of India which reads as under:
"366. Definitions. In this Constitution, unless the context
otherwise requires, the following expressions have the
meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to
sa~ rr
(29A) "tax· on the sale or purchase of goods" includes -
(b) a tax on the transfer of property in goods (whether as
goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of
a works contract;
E .
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;"
F
11. The only question which we are required to decide is
: whether the turnover of Rs.111,53,05,835/- of the sub-
contractors is liable to be added to the turnover of L& T? On the
turnover of L& T, it is liable to pay the tax and that is not in
dispute. What is in dispute is the addition of sub-contractors' G
turnover to the turnover of L& T.
12. A contract of work, i.e., "works contract" involves transfer
of property and also element of service or work rendered. That
is why it is called composite contract. Works contracts can be
of two types only: H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 12 S.C.R.

A (a) Works contracts for constructions; and
(b) Works contract in relation to any movable property
like repairs to vehicles, printing contracts etc.
13. In the first case of The State of Madras v. Mis. Gannon
B Dunkerley & Co., (Madras) Ltd.- [(1958) 9 STC 353] this Court
held that if the words "sale of goods" have to be incorporated
in their legal sense, that sense can only be what it has in the law
relating to sale of goods. Accordingly, this Court opined that the
expression "sale of goods" involves existence of an agreement
c between the parties for the sale of. goods in which eventually
property passes ..
· 14. The judgment of the first case of Gannon Dunkerley
(supra) necessitated an amendment. to Article 366 of the
. Constitution. Thus, the (Forty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1982 to
D · the Constitution inserted clause 29A to .Article 366 of the
Constitution, inter ~lia, inserting the definition of "tax ·on the
sale or purchase of goods". Insertion of clause 29A thus
empowers .the States to levy the tax on deemed sale. ~This
amendment enables States to levy tax on transfer of property in
E ... goods involved in the execution of works contract. The validity
of this Amendment was upheld by this Court in the case of
Builders' Association of India and others v. Union of India and
others - [(1989) 73 STC 370).
15. According to the judgment of the Constitution Bench
F of this Court ih the case of Mis Gannon. Dunkerley and Co.
and others v. State of Rajasthan and others - [(1993) 88 STC
-+- -
204], the measure for the levy of tax contemplated by Article
366(29A)(b) of the Constitution is the value of the goods involved
in the execution of a works contract.
G
16. In this case we are concerned with Andhra Pradesh
Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Section 4 is the charging section.
It comes in Chapter Ill which deals with 'ihcidence, levy and
calculation of tax'. In this case, we are concerned with the
taxability of works ·contract. That subject is dealt with ,by Section
H
·-._

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ORS. v. LARSEN & 857
TOURBO LTD. & ORS. [S.H. KAPADIA, J.]

4(7) of the said 2005 Act. In our view, Section 4(7) is a Code A
by itself. It begins with a non-obstante clause. It, inter alia, states
that every dealer executing works contract shall pay tax on the
value of goods at the time of incorporation of such goods in
the works executed at the rates applicable to the goods under
the Act. The point to be noted is that Section 4(7)(a) of the 2005 B
Act indicates that the taxable event is the transfer of property in
--! goods involved in the execution of a works contract and the
said transfer of property in such goods takes place when the
goods are incorporated in the works, the value of the g.oods
which constitutes the measure for the levy of the tax is the value c
of the goods at the time of the incorporation of the goods in the
works. What is stated hereinabove also finds place in Rule
17(1 )(a) of the APVAT Rules 2005, quoted herein above. It is
important to note that each of the sub-contractors of L&T is
registered dealer. None of them are unregistered. Under Section
D
;
4(7)(a) read with Rule 17(1)(c), quoted above, where VAT
dealer awards any part of the contract to a sub-contractor, such
J._
sub-contractor shall issue a tax invoice to the contractor for the
value of the goods at the time of incorporation in such sub-
contract. The tax charged in the tax invoice issued by the sub-
contractorshall be accounted by him in his returns. Therefore, E
the scheme indicates that there is a "deemed sale" by the dealer
executing the work, i.e., the sub-contractor. It is only the sub-
contractor who effects transfer of property in goods as no goods
vests in the respondent company (contractor) so as to be the
subject-matter of a retransfer. By virtue of Article 366(29A)(b) F
~ of the Constitution once the work is assigned by the contractor
(l&T), the only transfer of property in goods is by the sub-
contractor(s) who is a registered dealer in this case and who
claims to have paid taxes under the Act on the goods involved
in the execution of the works. Once the work is assigned by G
.,.At L& T to its sub-contractor(s), L& T ceases to execute the works
contract in the sense contemplated by Article 366(29A)(b)
because property passes by accretion and there is no property
in goods with the contractor which is capable of a retransfer,
whether as goods or in some other form. H
.,
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A 17. The question which.iS, raised before use is: whether
the turnover of the sub-contractors (whose names are also given
in the originalwritpetition) isto be added to the turnover of L&T.
In other words, the question which we are required to answer
is : whether the goods employed by the sub-contractors occur
B in the form of a single deemed sale or multiple deemed sales.
In our view, the principle ol!aw in this regard is clarified by this
Court in the case· of Builder's~ Association of India (supra) as )..-
under:
"Ordinarily unless there is a contract to the contrary in the
c case of works cohfract the property in the goods used in
the construction of a building passes to the owner of the
land on which the building is constructed, when the goods
or materials used are incorporated in the building."
(emphasis supplied by us)
D ..
18. As stated above, according to the Department, there
are two deemed sales .. one from the main contractor to
~
contractee and t~e other from sub-contractor(s) to the main
contractor, in the event of the contractee not having any privity
E of contract with _the sub-contractor(s).
19. If one keeps iri mind the above quoted observation of ~
this Court in the case of Builders' Association of India (supra)
the position becomes clear, namely, that even if there is no
privity of contract between the contractee and the sub-contractor,
F that would not do aw_ay the principle of transfer of property by ~

the sub-contractor by employing the same on the property . +
belonging to the contractee; This reasoning is based on the
principle of accretion of property in goods. It is subject to the
contract to the contrary. Thus, in our view, in such a case the
G work, executed by a sub-contractor, results in a single transaction
and not as multipletransactions. This reasoning is also borne
..,...
'(
out bySection 4(7) which refers to value of goods at the time
of incorporation in the works executed. In our view, if -the
argument of the Department is to be accepted,it would result in
H plurality of deemed sales which would be contrary to Article
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ORS. v. LARSEN & 859
TOURBO LTD. & ORS. [S.H. KAPADIA, J.]
-1 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution as held by the impugned A
judgment of the High Court. Moreover, it may result in double
taxation which may make the said 2005 Act vulnerable to
challenge as violatiye of Articles 14, 19(1 )(g) and 265 of the
Constitution of India as held by the High Court in its impugned
judgment. B
20. Before concluding, we may refer to one more aspect.
It appears that after the impugned judgment, the Department
has amended Rule 17 of the APVAT Rules, 2005 vide
Government Order dated 20.8.2007. The position has been
clarified vide Rule 17(1 )(c) (as amended). It is now clarified that c
where a VAT dealer awards any part of the contract to a
registered sub-contractor, no tax shall be payable on the
consideration paid for the sub-contract. Therefore, in our view,
the principle to be adopted in all such cases is that the property
in the goods would pass to the owner/contractee on its D
incorporation in the works executed. This principle finds place
in sub-section 7(a) of Section 4 of the said 2005 Act.
j...

21. On the facts of the case, it has been urged on behalf
of the Department that the respondent company has not
complied with the provisions of Rule 17(1 )(c) as it stood at the E
f
relevant time, which require the sub-contractor(s) to issue tax
invoice to the L&T which invoices would have indicated the
value of the goods at the time of incorporation in such sub-
contract and which would have indicated the tax charged. This
point is seriously disputed. According to the respondent company F
_._ it did produce all tax invoices received from the sub-contractors
but the_A.O. proceeded on the basis that there were two deemed
sales, one from main contractor to contractee and the other
from the sub-contractors to the main contractor and consequently
the A.O. did not look into the tax invoices of the sub-contractor(s). G
~ In this connection, we may state that the A. 0. decided the matter
)
on principle. The respondent company has annexed a list to the
original writ petition in which it has given all the details regarding
works contract turnover including the value of the work done by
the sub-contractor(s). H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2ooa112 s. c.R.

A 22. For the aforestated reasons, we see no reason even
on facts to interfere in the matter, however, in future we expect
the A. 0. to call for individual contract(s), tax invoice(s) arid call
such particulars require to be submitted by the assessee before
adding the turnover of the sub-contractor tb the turnover of the
B contractor.
"'"' 23. We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment dated
12.10.06 delivered by the High Court in the Writ Petition
No.12124 of 2006. Accordingly, this civil appeal stands
dismissed with no order as to costs.
c
D.G. Appeal dismissed.

~
r;

.\ ~
_.(_ 1--
I

l

'1.-