M/S. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

                         [2017] 7 S.C.R. 565



               MIS. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD.                             A
                                  v.
                 STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 9879of2017)
                          AUGUST28,2017                                   B

           (A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.(
          Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 - s. 7AA - Imposition of tax
· and penalty under - Works contract in favour of assessee for pro-
   viding and laying pipes for water supply scheme - Excisability to      C
  sales tax - Assessee seeking exemption ji·om tax - Rejection of, by
  the Assessing officer holding that the pipes manufactured and sup-
  plied by it fell within the definition of sale of goods and the con-
   tract was divisible in nature - Said order upheld by the appellate
   authority, Single Judge as well as Division Bench of the High Court
  - On appeal, held: Transfer of moveable property in a works con-        D
   tract is deemed to be sale - Authorities below as also High Court
   rightly held that the agreement was clearly in two parts-sale and
   supply of pipes, jointing material specials, valves, anchor blocks,
   etc. and the remaining part being supply of labour and services -
  Approach of the High Court is accepted that when it is found on         E
  facts that the works contract executed by assessee is a divisible
   contract, the submission of the assessee that it is to be treated as
   one single and composite contract is rejected - Further, assessee
 . admitted that it has no grievance against the finding that supply of
   pipes was sale of pipes involved in the execution of the· contracts,
   thus, was excisable to sales tax - Thus, judgment of the High Court    F
   is upheld.
       Dismissing the appeals, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 The High Court concluded that as per the terms
 and conditions thereof, substantial part of the value of the contract
 pertained to the cost of PSC pipes, joining material specials,           G
 valves, etc. which were manufactured by the assessee in its factory
 and were not supplied to the State Government. The High Court,
 thus, affirmed the findings of the authorities below on this aspect
 and concluded that the findings with regard to sale of pipes
                                                                          H
                                  565
I
    566           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2017] 7 S.C.R.


    A involved in the works contract are findings of facts which did not
      require any interference. The said approach of the High Court
      that when it is found on facts that the works contract executed by.
      the assessee is a divisible contract, the submission of the
      assessee that it is to be treated as one single and composite
    B contract needs to be rejected, is concurred with. [Paras 15, 16)
      [571-D-F[
                1.2 By virtue of the Forty Sixth Amendment to the
          Constitution, a single and indivisible contract is now brought on
          par with a contract containing two separate agreements. The State
          Governments have power to levy sales tax on value of material
     C    in execution of the works contract. This position is brought about
          by creating friction whereby the transfer of moveable property in
          a works contract is deemed to be sale, even though it may not be····
          well within the meaning of Sale of Goods Act. [Para 20) [576-D-
          EJ
     D        1.3 In the instant case, the assessing authority, after
       scrutinising the agreem.ent in question between the assessee and
       the State Government, returned a finding of fact that manufacture
       and supply of PSC pipes, jointing material specials, valves, anchor
       blocks, etc. do not fall within the scopes of buildings, bridges,
     E dams, roads and canals. It was also held that the agreement was
       clearly in two parts, namely, sale and supply of PSC pipes, jointing
       material specials, valves, anchor blocks, etc. and the remaining
       part being supply of labour and services. These findings are
        upheld not only_ by the appellate authority but also by the Single
       Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court. The
     F assessee has, in fact, admitted that it had no grievance against
       the finding that supply of pipes was nothing but the sale of pipes
       involved in the execution of the contracts and, therefore, It was
       excisable to sales tax. Thus, there is no fault with the impugned
       judgment of the High Court. [Para 21[ [576-D-H; 577-A-CJ
     G        State of Karnataka and Others v. Pro Lab and Others
              (2015) 8 SCC 557: [2015) l SCR 808; Larsen and
              Toubro Limited and Another v. State of Karna/aka and
              Another (2014) I SCC 708 - referred to.
              Kone Elevator India Private Limited v. State of Tamil ·
     H       .Nadu (2014) 7 SCC l - held inapplicable.
         MIS. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. v. STATE OF                                567
                    RAJASTHAN & ORS.

                               Case Law Reference                                  A
       c2014) 1 sec 1                held inapplicable.         Para.16
        [2015) 1 SCR 808             referred to.               Para 19
        (2014) 1 sec 708             referred to.               Paras 17, 20
                                                                                   B

     • CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9879
 of 2017.
        From the fin~! Order dated 13.02.2015 passed by the High Court
  of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition          C
· No.4513 of2004
                                 WITH
        Civil Appeal Nos. 9880-9886 of2017.
        Civi!Appea!Nos. 9887-9891 of2017.
                                                                                   D
      Arvind P. Datar, Sudhir Gupta, Sr. Advs.,Amarjit Singh Bedi, Varun
 Chandiok, Advs. for the Appellant.
      Tushar Mehta, ASG, Shiv Mangat Sharma, AAG, Ms. Harsha
 Vinoy, Milind Kumar, Arjun Singh, Rohit K.Singh, Advs. for the
 Respondents.                                                                      E
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                           '
         A. K. SIKRI, J. I. All these appeals are filed by the same
  appellant, namely, Mis. India Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred
  to as the 'assessee'). The singular issue that arises is also identical in all
· these appeals. The only reason for filing number of appeals is that the          F
  said issue pertains to different Assessment Years.
        2. The issue that has arisen in these appeals is as to whether
 Works contract given to the assessee is divisible in nature, in the facts of
 the case, and hence the imposition of tax and penalty made under Section
 7AA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 is justifiable and sustainable G
 in law.
        3. ln order to have clarity in the matter and better grasp of the /is,
 it is necessary to glance through the relevant facts under which the
 aforesaid issue has arisen for consideration.
                                                                                   H
568            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 7 S.C.R.



A            4. In the year 1954, the State Government of Rajasthan enacted
      the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act in order to tax the sales and purchase of
      any goods. The assessee is a company engaged in manufacturing and
      laying of pipelines for water supply schemes. The Public Health and
      Engineering Department (for short, 'PHED') of the State Government
      invited tenders for providing and laying of pipes complete with suitable
B     jointing material specials, valves and construction of valve chamber,
      anchor blocks table crossing, including testing and commissioning of
      pipelines. On August 23, 1988, a work order was issued by PHED in
      favour of the assessee and the assessee, under the contracts/agreement
      dated January 11, 1989, agreed to provide PSC pipes manufactured by it
 C    and had entered into the contracts with PHED for providing and laying
      of pipelines.
              5. On June 28, 1989, a notification inserting Rule JOB in the
      Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 granting exemption to Works contract
      came to be issued with retrospective effect from May 28, 1987. Another
D     work order was placed by the respondent in favour of the assessee on
      July 10, 1989. Pursuant to this, another notification dated March 04,
      1992 came to be issued by the respondent wherein it exempted tax on
      Works contract relating to dams and canals. The respondent issued
      another work order dated August 10, 1992 in favour of the assessee for
      commission of pipeline in a dam. Meanwhile, the assessee filed an
 E    application dated September 17, 1992 before the Commercial Tax Officer
      seeking exemption from paying tax. However, the same was rejected
      by the Commercial Tax Officer vide his order dated September 26, 1994
      making it clear to the assessee that the pipes manufactured and supplied
      by it fall within the definition of'sale of goods' and that the contract is
 F    divisible in nature. 75% value of the contract was treated as consideration
      for sale of goods.
             6. The appellate authority, Single Judge as well as the Division
      Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan, after dealing with merits of the
      case, affirmed the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer holding
 G    that the assessee is not entitled to daim exemption under Section 7 AA
      for supply of pipelines as that was termed as 'sale'.
             7. We may mention that the State Government also issued
      notification dated March 29, 200 l wherein laying of pipeline with material
      has been categorized as Works contract and because of this the assessee's
H     work, after the said notification, is considered as Works contract and
         M/S. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. v. STATE OF                                569
              RAJASTHAN & ORS. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

has been granted exemption from that date. We are, thus, concerned A
with the execution of this Works contract prior to the year 2001.
       8. Mr. Arvind Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for the
asses see, at the outset, drew the attention of this Court to the decision of
the Constitution Bench in the case of Kone Elevator India Private
Limited v. State of Tamil Nad11 1• He laboured to demonstrate that B
instant appeals were squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment wherein
it was held that a single, composite contract for the supply of goods,
labour and service will be treated as a Works contract and that it is not
permissible to label a contract as a contract of sale of goods or as a
Works contract depending on the proportion the component of supply of C
goods bears to the component of supply of labour and service. Unless
there are clearly two contracts, one for supply of goods and the second
for supply of labour and services, they cannot be treated separately.
       9. Describing the nature of the contract awarded to the assessee,
Mr. Datar emphasized that it was for the manufacture, supply and com- .
missioning of pipelines for the supply of water to cities and iowns from · D
certain specified dams and the Indira Gandhi Canal by PHED. In this
composite works contract, the assessee was inter alia required to:
       (i) establish a factory near the working site for manufacturing
           pipes of specified dimensions;
                                                                                   E
       (ii) test the pipes;
       (iii) undertake civil works like digging of trenches, etc.;
      ·(iv) lay the pipes with welding, jointing, etc. and fill up the trenches;
            and
       (v) sectional testing and commissioning of complete pipeline and
                                                                                   F
           other ancillary works.
        ln support, he also referred to certain clauses of the work order
· which, according to him, amply demonstrate that the assessee was sup-
  posed to undertake civil work extensively.
                                                                                   G
       ln addition, relying upon Rule IOB of the 1955 Rules, Mr. Datar
 contended that the assessee was entitled to characterisation of its contract
 under the said Rule and once this exercise is undertaken, it would be

  (2014) 1 sec 1
  1

                                                                                   H
    570            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 7 S.C.R.



    A     apparent that the contract in question was works contract, which was
!
          indivisible in nature.
               10. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General
       appearing for the respondents, countered the aforesaid submissions and
        maintained that the works contract involved in this case is rightly held to
    B be divisible in nature. According to him, two types of work orders had
        been issued by the State Government. As per those orders, the work of
        supply of pipes and the works for contract of civil work are two different
        contracts in which the first part is concerned with sale of pipes on which
        tax has been impo~ed in accordance with the rates applicable to the
        pipes, and for which exemption certain caµnot be issued as supply in
    C such cases falls within the definition of 'sale'. He submitted that the
        assessing authority had examined the work order in holding that the
        works contract was divisible and had also rightly rejected the application
        for exemption on the ground that the sale of pre-stressed cement concrete
      . pipe falls within the definition of 'sale of goods' under the Act.
    D          11. He also argued that the term 'works contract' appearing in
          Article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution oflndia takes within its fold all
          genres of works provide for labour and services. -For sustaining levy of
          tax on goods, deemed to have been sold in execution of a works contract,
          the following three conditions must be fulfilled:
                (i) there must be a works contract;
                (ii) goods shouldhave been involved in execution ofa works
                     contract; and
                 (iii) property in those goods must be transferred to a third party
                      either as goods or in some other form.
     F
                Mr. Mehta argued that the works contract executed by the
          assessee is a contract which is divisible under work orders and, thus, the
          imposition of tax and penalties made under Section 7AA of the Rajasthan
          Sales Tax Act, 1954 is in accordance with law.
     G            12. Mr. Mehta also referred to the terms and conditions of the
          agreement and submitted that in the contract substantial part ofthe value
          of the contract pertains to the cost of PSC pipes, jointing material specials,
          valves etc. which were manufactured by the assessee in their factory at
          Kekri and were supplied to the State Government. It was, thus;
          submitted that the High Court has rightly interpreted the contract and
     H
           MIS. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD . .v. STATE OF                        571
                  RAJASTHAN & ORS. [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

. arrived at a correct conclusion and on these facts, the judgment of this A
  Court in Kone Elevator India Private Limited is not applicable. Instead
  he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of State of
  Karnataka and Others v. Pro Lab and Others2 in support of his
  submissions.
       13. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by          B
 counsel for both the parties.
        14. Thrust of the arguments of the counsel for the appellants is
 that the contract in question was a single, composite contract for laying
 pipelines for supply of water from dams and canals to certain cities and
 towns in the Stafe of Rajasthan and it cannot be treated as divisible         c
 contract. In other words, the submission was that being a single
 indivisible contract, it was not permissible for the State to extract
 divisibility component therein and impose sales tax on the purported sale
 of goods.
         15. In the first instance, it may be mentioned that the High Court    D
 has examined the nature of contract in question and has come to the
 conclusion that as per the terms and conditions thereof, substantial part
 of the value of the contract pertained to the cost of PSC pipes, joining
 material specials, valves, etc. which were manufactured by the assessee
 in its factory at Kekri and were not supplied to the State Government.
 The High Court, thus, affirmed the findings of the authorities below on       E
 this aspect and concluded that the findings with regard to sale of pipes
 involved in the works contract are findings of facts which did not require
 any interference.
        16. We are inclined to agree with the aforesaid approach of the
 High Court, namely, when it is found on facts that the works contract          F
  executed by the assessee is a divisible contract, the argument of the
  assessee that it is to be treated as one single and composite contract
  needs to be rejected on the facts of this case. On these facts, we are
  also of the opinion that Kone Elevator India Private Limited is not
. applicable. In that case, the Court was required to determine whether a
                                                                                G
  particular contract was works contract for the purposes of Article
  366(29A)(b) of the Constitution. The Court held that in order to determine
  such a question, the enquiry will have to be on the issue as to whether

  2
      c2015) s sec 557
                                                                                H
572            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 7 S.C.R.



A  the contract in question is a composite one for supply of goods, labour
   and service or whether it is not one such single composite contract but
   two clearly separate contracts, one for supply of goods only and the
   other for supply of labour and services only. The Court further held that
   if it is a composite contract, even as per the constitutional philosophy
   contained in Article 366(29A), it is no longer permissible to weigh what
 B proportion the component of supply of goods bears to the component of
    supply of labour and service in the composite contract (whether in terms
    of the consideration payable or otherwise), and then depending on
   whether the proportion of supply of goods component is high, label it as
    a 'contract for sale of goods' and after the said proportion is low then
 C label it as a 'works contract'. The Court, thus, held that ifit is a composite
    contract for supply of goods, labour and service, then it must be held to
    be a works contract as per Article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution.
             17. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the contract in
      question was a works contract. The issue is altogether different, namely,
 D    that of divisibility. It may be mentioned that before Article 366(29A) of
      the Constitution was amended with effect from March 01, 1983, the test
      applicable was 'dominant nature test' or 'degree of intention' or
      'overwhelming component test' or 'degree oflabour and service test'.
      This Court in Larsen and Toubro Limited and Another v. State of
      Karnataka and Another3 clarified that post amendment, i.e. with effect
 E    from March 01, 1983, these tests are no longer applicable. It is also
      made clear that the works contract is an indivisible contract, but, by
      legal fiction, is divided into two parts, one for the sale of goods and the
      other for supply of labour and services. Affirming the aforesaid dicta in
      Larsen and Toubro Limited, this Court in Kone Elevator India Private
 F    Limited summarised the legal position in the following manner:
            "37. Having dealt with the aforesaid authorities, as advised at
            present, we shall refer to certain authorities as to how the term
            "works contract" has been understood in the
            contextual perspective post the constitutional amendment. In
 G          Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., the Court observed that the distinction
            between a contract of sale and a works contract is not free from
            difficulty and has been the subject-matter of several judicial
            decisions. It is further observed that neither any straitjacket formula

 H    '(2014) 1 sec 10s
   MIS. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. v. STATE OF                             573
        RAJASTHAN & ORS. [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

can be made available nor can such quick-witted tests devised as A
would be infallible, for it is all a question of determining the intention
of the parties by culling out the same on an overall reading of
the several terms and conditions of a contract. Thereafter, the
two-Judge Bench set out three categories of contracts and
explained the contours, namely, (i) the contract may be for work
                                                                           B
to be done for remuneration and for supply of materials used in
the execution of the work for a price; (ii) it may be a contract for
work in which the use of the materials is accessory or incidental
to the execution of the work; and (iii) it may be a contract for
supply of goods where some work is required to be done as
incidental to the sale. Thereafter, it opined that the first contract is c
a composite contract consisting of two contracts, one of which is
for the sale of goods and the other is for work and labour; the
second is clearly a contract for work and labour not involving sale
 of goods; and the third is a contract for sale where the goods are
 sold as chattels and the work done is merely incidental to the sale.
                                                                           D
 38. Commenting on the said decision in Larsen and Toubro, a·
 three-Judge Bench opined that after the Forty-sixth Amendment,
 the thrusts laid down therein are not of much help in determining
 whether the contract is a works contract or a contract for sale of
 goods. We shall elaborate the perception as has been stated in
 Larsen and Toubroat a later stage.                                        E

                       xx            xx           xx
69. Considered on the touchstone of the aforesaid two Constitution
Bench decisions in Builders' Assn. and Gannon Dunkerley (2, we
are of the convinced opinion that the principles stated in Larsen          F
and Toubro as reproduced by us hereinabove, do correctly
enunciate the legal position. Therefore, "the dominant nature test"
or "overwhelming component test" or "the degree of labour and
service test" are really not applicable. If the contract is a composite
one which falls under the definition of works contracts as engrafted
under clause (29-A)(b) of Article 366 of the Constitution, the             G
incidental part as regards labour and service pales into total
insignificance for the purpose of determining the nature of the
contract."


                                                                           H
               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 7 S.C.R.
574



A             18. In the case of Pro Lab, same very argument, which is advanced
      in this case, was repelled and in the process judgment in Kone Elevator
      India Private Limited was also discussed and taken note of, in the
      following manner:
            "22. It was also argued that phot()graph service can be exigible
B           to sales tax only when the same is classifiable as works contract.
            For being classified as works contract the transaction under
            consideration has to be a composite transaction involving both
            goods and services. If a transaction involves only service i.e. work
            and labour then the same cannot be treated as works contract. It
            was contended that processing of photography was a contract
 c          for service simpliciter with no elements of goods at all and,
            therefore, Entry 25 could not be saved by taking shelter under
            clause (29-A) ofArticle 366 of the Constitution. For this proposition,
            umbrage under the judgment in B.C. Kame case was sought to
            be taken wherein this Court held that the work involving taking a
D           photograph, developing the negative or doing other photographic
            work could not be treated as contract for sale of goods. Our
            attention was drawn to that portion of the judgment where the
            Court held that such a contract is for use of skill and labour by the
            photographer to bring about desired results inasmuch as a good
            photograph reveals not only the aesthetic sense and artistic faculty
 E          of the photographer, it also reflects his skill and labour.
            23. Such an argi.!ment also has to be rejected for more than one
            reasons. In the first instance, it needs to be pointed out that the
            judgment in Kame case was rendered before the Forty-sixth
            Constitutional Amendment. Keeping this in mind, the second aspect
 F          which needs to be noted is that the dispute therein was whether
            there is a contract of sale of goods or a contract for service. This
            matter was examined in the light of law prevailing at that time, as ·
            declared in Dunkerley case as per which dominant intention of
            the contract was to be seen and further that such a contract was
 G          treated as not divisible. It is for this reason in BSNL and Larsen
            and Toubro cases, this Court specifically pointed out that Kame
            case would not provide an answer to the issue at hand. On the
            contrary, the legal position stands settled by the Constitution Bench
            of this Court in Kone Elevator India (P) Ltd. v. State of T.N.

 H
      MIS. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. v. STATE OF                            575
              RAJASTHAN & ORS. [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

     Following observations in that case are apt for this purpose: (SCC     A
     p.31,para44)
        "44. On the basis of the aforesaid elucidation, it has been
        deduced that a transfer of property in goods under clause (29~
        A)(b) of Article 366 is deemed to be a sale of goods involved
        in the execution of a works contract by the person making the       B
        transfer and the purchase of those goods by the person to
        whom such transfer is made. One thing is significant to note
        that in Larsen and Toubro, it has been stated that after the
        constitutional amendment, the narrow meaning given to the
        term 'works contract' in Gannon Dunkerley (1) no longer sur-
        vives at present. It has been observed in the said case that:       C
        (Larsen and Toubro case, SCC p. 750, para 72)
        '72 .... even if in a contract, besides the obligations of supply
        of goods and materials and performance of labour and ser-
        vices, some additional obligations are imposed, such contract
        does not cease to be works contract, [for] the additional obli-     D
        gations in the contract would not alter the nature of the con-
        tract so long as the contract provides for a contract for works
        and satisfies the primary description of works contract.'
      It has been further held that: (Larsen and Toubro case , SCC
      p. 750, para 72)                                                      E
         '72.  . Once the characteristics or elements of works con-
         , 1 ,.   ,.ii;' fi ed in a contract then irrespective of additional
         obugacions, such contract would be covered by the term "works.
         contract" [because] nothing in Article 366(29-A)(b) limits the
         term "works contract" to contract for labour and service only."' F
       19. The history of legislative and constitutional amendment
pertaining to works contract is well known, which has been stated and
restated by this Court in number of cases. The entire position is
summarised in Pro Lab case as well and, therefore, it is not necessary
to burden this judgment by repeating the same. Purpose would be served G
by reproducing paragraph 20 of the said judgm~nt wherein the legal ,
position is summarised as follows:
      "20. To sum up, it follows from the reading of the aforesaid
      judgment in Larsen and Toubro case that after insertion of clause
                                                                            H
576            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 7 S.C.R.



A           (29~A) in Article 366, the works contract whi~h ~as indi:isible
            one by legal fiction, altered into a contract, which 1s penmtted to
            be bifurcated into two: one for "sale of goods" and the other for
            "services'', thereby making goods component of the contract
            exigible to sales tax. Further, while going into this exercise of
            divisibility, dominant intention behind such a. contract, namely,
 B
            whether it was for sale of goods or for services, is rendered otiose
            or immaterial. It follows, as a sequitur, that by virtue of clause
            (29-A) ofArticle 366, the State Legislature is now empowered to
            segregate the goods part of the works contract and impose sales
            tax thereupon. It may be noted that Entry 54 ofList II of Schedule
 c          VII to the Constitution of India empowers the State Legislature
            to enact a law taxing sale of goods. Sales tax, being a subject-
            matter of the State List, the State Legislature has the competency
            to legislate over the subject."
             20. It clearly follows from the above that by virtue of the Forty
 D    Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, a single and indivisible contract is
      now brought on par with a contract containing two separate agreements.
      It has also now become a settled. position in law that the State
      Governments have power to levy sales tax OQ value of material in
      execution of the works contract. This position is brought about by creating
      friction whereby the transfer of moveable property in a works contract
 E    is deemed to be sale, even though it may not be well within the meaning
      of Sale of Goods Act. In Larsen and Toubro case it was further held
      that the value .of goods which can constitute a measure of levy of the tax
      has to be the value of goods at the time of incorporation of the goods in
      the works even though property in goods passes later. Taxing the sale
 F    of goods element in a works contract is permissible even after
      incorporation of goods, provided tax is directed to Oi.e value of goods at
      the time of incorporation and does not purport to tax the transfer of
      immovable property (refer to paragraph.124).
             21. In the present case, the assessing authority, after.scrutinising
 G    the agreement in question between the assessee and the State
      Government, returned a finding of fact that manufacture and supply of
      PSC pipes,jointing material specials, valves, anchor blocks, etc. do not
      fall within the scopes of buildings, bridges, dams, roads and canals. Jt
      was also held that the agreement was clearly in two parts, namely, (i) sale
      and supply of PSC pipes,jointing material specials, valves, anchor blocks,
 H
          MIS. INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. v. STATE OF                            577
               RAJASTHAN & ORS. [A.K. SlKRI, J.]

  etc. and (ii) the remaining part being supply oflabour and services. These A
  findings are upheld not only.by the appellate authority but also by the
  Single Judge of the High Court as well as the Division Bench of the
  High Court. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the assessee
  has, in fact, admitted that it had no grievance against the finding that
  supply of pipes was nothing but the sale of pipes involved in the execution B
  of the contracts and, therefore, it was excisable to sales tax. In view of
  the findings recorded by the authorities below, this element of sale of
  goods shall apply to jointing material specials, valves, anchor blocks, etc.
· as well. Thus, we are unable .to find any fault with the impugned
  judgment of the High Court.
        22. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed with costs.               c


 Devika Gujral                                             Appeals ~ismissed.