SALE AND CONTRACT FOR WORK AND MATERIAL: A

JUDICIAL APPROACH

3.1: Law of Contract- II

Submitted by-

Himanshu Kaswa

UID No- UG16-21

nd
2 Year, III Semester

Submitted to-
Dr. Manish Yadav
Assistant Professor of Law

Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF CASES .............................................................................................................................. 4

2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 5
3. RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................. 6
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 6
5. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 7
5.1. JUDICIAL VIEW IN HISTORICAL PERIOD ............................................................................ 7

5.2. JUDICIAL APPROACH AFTER THE 46TH AMENDMENT ..................................................... 9

6. CONTRACT ON SALE OF GOODS ................................................................................................ 10
6.1. ESSENTIALS OF CONTRACT OF SALE ............................................................................... 10
7. CONTRACT FOR WORK AND MATERIAL .................................................................................. 12
8. CONTRACT OF SALE DISTINGUISHED FROM CONTRACT OF WORK AND MATERIAL. 13
9. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 16

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………………. 17

1. TABLE OF CASES

i. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. CC(1) SCALE 436; (2001) 4 SCC 593; 124 STC
59; AIR 2001 SC 862; 2001 AIR SCW 559

ii. Builders' Association of India v. UOI (1989) 2 SCR 320; (1989) 1 CLA 332 (SC);
(1989) 73 STC 370 (SC); (1989) 1 SCALE 770; (1989) 2 SCC 645; AIR 1989 SC 1371

iii. Dodd v. Wilson [1946] 2 AII ER 694

iv. Government of Andhra Pradesh V. Guntur Tobaccos Limited AIR 1965 SC 1396

v. 'Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., V. State of Andhra Pradesh' (2000) 199 STC 533

vi. M/s Larsen Toubro and another vs. State of Karnataka and another [2013] 53 NTN
DX 65; (2014) 1 SCC 708

vii. Robinson v. Graves 1932. R. 2021

viii. State of A.P. V. Kone Elevators (India) Ltd -(2005) 3 SCC 389

ix. State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. AIR 1958 SC 560 ; 1959 SCR 379; (1958) 9
STC 353 (SC)

x. State of Punjab v. Associated Hotels AIR 1972 SC 1131

xi. State of Tamil Nadu V. Anandam Viswanathan AIR 1989 SC 962
2. INTRODUCTION
The contract of sales of good is concerned with sale of particular product which forms the subject
matter of the contract. The provisions for contract of sale is governed by the sale of goods act
wherein it says

1. 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.
2. A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional.
3. 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.
4. An agreement to sell becomes a sale when the time elapses or the conditions are fulfilled
subject to which the property in the goods is to be transferred.1

Sale is to be distinguished from other contracts in that it involves transfer of ownership in goods
for money. If the three elements of ownership, goods or money is absent, the contract will not be
one of sale of goods for the purposes of the act regardless of how similar is the essence of such
contracts. The subject matter contract of sale is essentially the goods. Section 2(7) says that
“goods” means every kind of movable property other than money or actionable claims, it includes
stock and shares, growing crops, and things attached to the earth which are to be removed because
of the contract of sale.2 According to this definition money and actionable claims are not goods
and cannot be bought and sold. Money here means legal tender money.
Contract for work and materials involves the skills and abilities of the employees. It falls
within the ambit of running from services to sale of goods. It is a contract the substance of which
is that skill and labour must be exercised in carrying out the contract. It is a kind of contracts for
labour, work or service and not for sale of goods, though goods are used in executing the contract
for labour, work or service. It is governed by ordinary contract law and stipulated by the Law on
the supply of goods and services.

1
S.4, The Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
2
The Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
3
AIR 1958 SC 560; 1959 SCR 379; (1958) 9 STC 353 (SC).
3. RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this research is to study the provisions relating to sale of goods and contract
for work and materials and take a comprehensive approach in the research of this field under law.
In particular, this proposed study seeks to achieve the following objectives:

• To understand the meaning of contract for work and materials.

• To comprehend provisions relating to Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
• The legal position and statutory framework of sale and contract for work and materials.
• Historical background and evolution of the concepts.
• To analyse the intricacies of the concepts and the need for amendment.
• Distinguishing features of the sale of goods and contract for work and materials.

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In order to achieve the prescribed objectives of study, doctrinal method of research methodology
is adopted, literature review on the subject is applied and the issues under study are examined in a
comprehensive manner. The various aspects of the study are reflected in the substantive sections
of this research work. The study of the concepts will involve:

i. An analysis of the features of legal system pertaining to sale and contract for work and
materials.
ii. An attempt to supplement and update the existing legal literature to promote more
intensive research in this area of law under study.

The doctrinal work adopted for the research work and the study on the concerned concept is both
analytical as well as descriptive. The research has put efforts to critically examine the primary
sources like books, articles, journals, case laws and e-resources. Also, the latest information the
web in the field of contract has helped the researcher to explore the subject through various
dimensions and taken into consideration the dynamism of this area
5. BACKGROUND
The historical background of the sale and contract for work and material traces back from the
instances of the case of State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co.3, wherein it was held that no
tax can be levied on works contract, as tax can be levied only on ‘sale of goods’ as defined in Sale
of Goods Act. The issue was discussed elaborately in the context of building contracts. The Court
held that the concept of ‘sale’ must be given its legal understanding for the purposes of ascertaining
legislative competence; and involved three elements – (i) the objective existence of goods; (ii) the
intention of the parties to transfer title in those goods; (iii) actual transfer of title in furtherance of
that intention, supported by consideration. It was held that a tax on an alleged sale of goods in
building contracts would be outside the legislative competence of states. It was interpreted that the
sale of goods involves an agreement between the competent parties in relation to the sale of actual
goods in which eventually the property passes. In an elongated judgement it was asserted that in a
building contract, the agreement between the parties is that the contractor should construct a
building according to the specifications contained in the agreement, and in consideration therefore
receive payment as provided therein, there is in such an agreement neither a contract to sell the
materials used in the construction, nor does property pass therein as movables. It is therefore
impossible to maintain that there is implicit in a building contract a sale of materials as understood
in law. Therefore, in ancient times, no tax was levied on works contract. Work tax was one of the
ways in avoiding tax without any hassles.

5.1. JUDICIAL VIEW IN HISTORICAL PERIOD

In 1972, the Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment (State of Punjab v. Associated Hotels)4,
differentiated between sale and works contract as follows-

“…where the principal objective of work undertaken by the payee of the price is not the transfer
of a chattel qua chattel the contract is of work and labour. The test is whether or not the work and
labour bestowed end in anything that can properly become the subject of sale…neither the
ownership of the materials nor the value of skill and labour as compared with the value of the
materials is conclusive although such matters may be taken into consideration in determining in
the circumstances of a particular case, whether the contract is, in substance, one of work and
3
AIR 1958 SC 560; 1959 SCR 379; (1958) 9 STC 353 (SC).
4
AIR 1972 SC 1131.
labour or one for the sale of a chattel. A building contract or a contract under which a movable is
fixed to another chattel or on the land where the intention plainly is not to sell the article but to
improve the land or the chattel and the consideration is not for the transfer of the chattel, but for
the labour and work done and the material furnished, the contract will be one of work and
labour…”

however, in Gannon Dunkerley’s the supreme Court held that the expression “sale of goods” as
used in the entries in the seventh schedule of the constitution has the same meaning as in the Sale
of Goods Act, 1930. This decision was related to works contracts. There has been many instances
of tax avoidance cases in this time period. A practice of inter-state consignment transfers, i.e.,
transfer of goods from head office or 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 the sales tax on
inter-state sales under the Central Sales Tax Act. While in the case of a works contract, if the
contract treats the sale of materials separately from the cost of labour, the sale of materials would
be taxable, but in the case of an indivisible works contract, it is not possible to levy sales tax on
the transfer of property in the goods involved in the execution of such contract as it has been held
that there is no sale of the materials as such and the property in them does not pass the movables.1

Though practically the purchaser in a hire-purchase agreement gets the goods on the date of the
hire-purchase, it has been held that there is sale only when the purchaser exercises the option to
purchase at a much later date and therefore only the depreciated value of the goods involved in
such transaction at the time the option to purchase is exercised becomes assessable to sale tax. The
various problems connected with the power of the states to levy a tax on the sale of goods and with
the Central Sales Act, 1956 were referred to the Law Commission of India. The commission
considered these matters in their sixty-first report and recommended, inter alia, certain
amendments in the constitution if as a matter of administrative policy, it is decided to levy tax on
the transactions. It was, therefore, proposed to suitably amend the constitution to include in article
366, a definition of “tax on the sale of purchase of goods” by inserting a new clause (29A).

5
Statement of objects and Reasons appended to the constitution as (46th Amendment) Bill, 1981 which was enacted
as the constitution 46th amendment act, 1982 http://indiacode.nic.in/coi web/amend/amend46.htm(June 26, 2017).
 TH
5.2. JUDICIAL APPROACH AFTER THE 46 AMENDMENT

After various provisions have been inserted and amendments were made clause 29A was added to
Article 366 to cover ‘transfer of property in goods involved in execution of works contracts. There
were some observations made in Builders' Association of India v. UOI6 while upholding the
constitutional validity of 46th amendment wherein the Court was of the opinion that if the dominant
intention of a contract was not to transfer the property in goods, but it was Works Contract, or for
that matter, a contract in the nature of rendering of services, even if a part of it related to the transfer
of goods, that would be immaterial and no sales tax on the said part could be levied, going by the
principle of dominant intention behind such a contract, which was in the nature of Works Contract
in the contract relating to construction of buildings. It was also observed that ‘After the 46th
amendment, the works contract which was indivisible one, is by a legal fiction altered into one for
sale of goods and the other for supply of labour and services. After 46th amendment, it has become
possible for States to levy tax on value of goods involved in a works contract in the same way in
which the sales tax was leviable on the price of goods and materials supplied in a building contract
which had been entered into two distinct and separate parts.’ A remarkable clarity of Article 366
was stated in the case of M/s Larsen Toubro and another vs. State of Karnataka and
another7wherein it was emphasized that the definition of 'tax on the sale or purchase of goods'
includes a tax on the transfer or property in the goods as goods or which have lost its form as goods
and have acquired some other form involved in the execution of a works contract.
Thus, a transfer of property in goods under Clause 29A(b) of Article 366 is deemed to be
a sale of the goods involved in the execution of a works contract by the person making the transfer
and the purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer is made. In Associated
Cement Companies Ltd. v. CC8, it was held that even if the dominant intention of the contract is
rendering of service which will amount to a works contract, after 46th amendment to Constitution,
the State would now be empowered to levy sales tax on material used in such contract. in
Commissioner of Central Excise v. Vahoo Colour Lab9, it was endeavoured to clarify the scope of
service tax in the context of works contracts. The Court had to determine the extent

6
(1989) 2 SCR 320; (1989) 1 CLA 332 (SC); (1989) 73 STC 370 (SC); (1989) 1 SCALE 770; (1989) 2 SCC 645;
AIR 1989 SC 1371.
7
[2013] 53 NTN DX 65; (2014) 1 SCC 708
8
2001(1) SCALE 436; (2001) 4 SCC 593; 124 STC 59; AIR 2001 SC 862; 2001 AIR SCW 559.
9
Service Tax Appeal No.19 of 2009.
to which service tax would be payable. Consequently, the Court held that service tax and sales tax
operate in two different spheres; and service tax would be payable only on the service component
and not the whole amount of the consideration.

6. CONTRACT ON SALE OF GOODS

The law relating to sale and purchase of goods, prior to 1930 was dealt by the Indian Contract Act,
1872. However, there has been change in 1930 and the provisions relating to sale of goods is
contained in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. In 1930, Sections 76 to 123 of the Contract Act was
repealed and a separate Act known as the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 was passed. This law came to
force on 1st July 1930. The Sale of goods is one of the most important commercial contracts Under
a contract of sale, a seller in the status of the owner, or co-owner of the goods, transfers or agrees
to transfer the ownership in goods to the for an agreed upon value in money, called the price, paid
or the promise to pay same. A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional depending case to
case basis. A contract to transfer the ownership of goods from the seller to the buyer is known as
contract of sale. It concerns with the transfer of property in goods which forms the conclusion of
the contract.

6.1. ESSENTIALS OF CONTRACT OF SALE

i. GOODS- The subject matter of a contract of sale must be goods. Every kind of movable
property except actionable claims and money is regarded as ‘goods’. It includes water,
electricity, gas, stock and shares. Old coins are treated as goods. Contracts relating to services
are not considered as contract of sale. Immovable property is governed by a separate statute,
‘Transfer of Property Act’.

ii. TWO PARTIES- An existence of two parties is a must in contract of sale. A contract of sale
of goods is bilateral in nature wherein property in the goods has to pass from one party to
another. One cannot buy one’s own goods. However, there is an exception against the general
rule that no person can buy his own goods. Where a pawnee sells the goods pledged with
him/her on non-payment of his/her money, the pawnor may buy them in execution of a decree.
iii. PRICE- The buyer must pay some price for goods. The term ‘price’ is ‘the money
consideration for a sale of goods’. Accordingly, consideration in a contract of sale has
necessarily to be in money. Where goods are offered as consideration for goods, it will not
amount to sale, but it will be called barter or exchange, which was prevalent in ancient times.
Similarly, if a person offers the goods to somebody else without consideration, it amounts to
a gift or charity and not sale. In explicit terms, goods must be sold for a definite amount of
money, called the price. However, the consideration can be partly in money and partly in
valued up goods. Furthermore, payment is not necessary at the time of making the contract
of sale.

iv. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP- Transfer of property in goods is also integral to a contract

of sale. The term ‘property in goods’ means the ownership of the goods. In every contract
of sale, there should be an agreement between the buyer and the seller for transfer of
ownership. Here property means the general property in goods, and not merely a special
property. Thus, it is the general property, which is transferred under a contract of sale as
distinguished from special property, which is transferred in case of pledge of goods, i.e.,
possession of goods is transferred to the pledgee or pawnee while the ownership rights
remain with the pledger. Thus, in a contract of sale there must be an absolute transfer of the
ownership. It must be noted that the physical delivery of goods is not essential for
transferring the ownership.

v. ALL ESSENTIALS OF A VALID CONTRACT- A contract of sale is a special type of

contract, therefore, to be valid, it must have all the essential elements of a valid contract,
viz., free consent, consideration, competency of contracting parties, lawful object, legal
formalities to be completed, etc. A contract of sale will be invalid if important elements are
missing.

vi. INCLUDES BOTH A ‘SALE’ AND ‘AN AGREEMENT TO SELL’- The ‘contract of
sale’ is a generic term and includes both sale and an agreement to sell. The sale is an executed
or absolute contract whereas ‘an agreement to sell’ is an executory contract and implies a
conditional sale. A contract of sale can be made merely by an offer, to buy or sell goods for a
price, followed by acceptance of such an offer. Interestingly, neither the
 payment of price nor the delivery of goods is essential at the time of making the contract of
sale unless otherwise agreed. Subject to the provisions of the law for time being in force, a
contract of sale may be made either orally or in writing, or partly orally and partly in writing,
or may even be implied from the conduct of the parties.

7. CONTRACT FOR WORK AND MATERIAL

Contract of work requires substantial skills and expertise and the exercise of labor and if any goods
are supplied with it then it is incidental and subsidiary to such a contract. The Law on supplies of
goods and services in 1982 provides some important unspoken conditions implied in such
contracts. If a contract related to credit or loans, it can also be regulated by the Law on consumer
credit in 1974. The Law applies not only to normal "consumer." It also applies to trader or
partnership, but not the company. Sometimes the contract includes elements of an agreement on
the supply of goods and elements of the service agreement. In the past it sometimes caused
problems, but now seems fairly simple matter is the use of unspoken contract terms of products in
the catalogue Elements associated with the contract and the contract for services element of the
contract associated with the services. For example, contract maintenance vehicle includes element
works (services), and element materials. So if your complaint is related to the fact that the new
distributor ignition does not function properly due to a defect in it, you file a complaint inarticulate
condition of satisfactory quality products. If your complaint is related to the fact that the new
distributor ignition does not work properly, because improperly installed, the complaint is that the
contract for services is made without due diligence and skill.
8. CONTRACT OF SALE DISTINGUISHED FROM CONTRACT OF
WORK AND MATERIAL.

The concept of contract of sale of goods is distinct from contract of work and material. In various
cases, this line of distinction has been drawn to determine the clear definitions of both the contracts
and how various provisions can be applied in these cases. In 'Government of Andhra Pradesh V.
10
Guntur Tobaccos Limited' noted that a contract for a work in the execution of which goods are
used may take one of the three following forms:

i. The contract may be used for work to be done for remuneration and for supply of
materials used in the execution of the works for a price.
ii. It may be a contract for work in which the use of materials is accessory or incidental to the
execution of the work; or
iii. It may be a contract of work and use or supply of materials though not accessory to the
execution of the contract is voluntary or gratuitous.

In the last class there is no sale because though property passes it does not pass for a price. Whether
a contract is of the first or the second class must depend upon the circumstances; if it is of the first
it is a composite contract for work and sale of goods. Where it is of second category, it is a contract
for execution of work not involving sale of goods. The question as to whether a contract is a
contract of work or a contract of sale is the subject matter of precedents on the subject. The
principles, as decided cases would show, are well defined but the application of those principles
to individual cases often poses a difficulty. In determining as to whether a contract constitutes one
for work or is a contract of sale, it is the dominant interest and object of the parties in entering into
the contract, as evinced by the terms of the contract, the circumstances of the contract and the
customs of the trade that provide a guiding indicator. The object of the parties is of necessity to be
deduced from the terms of the contract. In 'State of Punjab and Haryana V. Associated Hotels of
India Limited'11 the Supreme Court held that a contract for sale is one whose main object is the
transfer of property in, and the delivery of the possession of a chattel as a chattel to the buyer.
Where the principal object of the work undertaken by the payee of the price is not the transfer of
a chattel, the contract is one of work and labour. The test is

10
AIR 1965 SC 1396.
11
AIR 1972 SC 1131.
whether or not the work and labour bestowed end in anything that can properly become the subject
of sale; neither the ownership of material, nor the value of the skill and labour as compared with
the value of the material, is conclusive, though these circumstances may be taken into
consideration in deciding whether a subsisting contract is a contract of work and labour or contract
for a sale of a chattel. In the case of Robinson v. Graves12, in which the artist hired him to a portrait.
The Court had to decide whether it was a contract for the sale of goods. The court raised the
question that was the subject of the contract, services or skills of the merchant? In this case the
Court found that the contract was mainly associated with the skill and it was a seller's contract for
work and materials. However, the outcome of such cases is not always predictable. On the other
hand, in the case of Dodd v. Wilson13 a contract between the farmer and vet veterinarian for which
the farmer had to enter cattle vaccine, purchased specifically for this vet was recognized contract
of work and materials.
In 'State of Tamil Nadu V. Anandam Viswanathan'14- the contract in question involved
supply and printing of question papers to universities. The assesse entered into those contracts for
printing and the question involved was whether the taxable turnover for the purpose of Tamil Nadu
General Sales Tax Act, 1959 would include the printing and block making charges. The Supreme
Court held that the contract in question was a contract of work, having regard to the nature of the
job to be done and the confidence reposed in the contractor for work to be rendered. The supply
of paper was merely incidental. In 'State of A.P. V. Kone Elevators (India) Ltd15 the distinction
between a contract of sale and a works contract found elaboration - "If the intention to transfer for
a price a chattel in which the transferee had no previous property, then the contract is a contract
for sale. Ultimately, the true effect of an accretion made pursuance to a contract has to be judged
not by artificial rules but from the intention of the parties to the contract. In a 'contract of sale', the
main object is the transfer of property and delivery of possession of the property, whereas the main
object in a 'contract for work' is not the transfer of the property but it is one for work and labour.
Another test often to be applied is - when and how the property of the dealer in such a transaction
passes to the customer- is it by transfer at the time of delivery of the finished articles as a chattel
or by accession during the procession of work on fusion to the moveable property of the customer?
If it is the former, it is a 'sale'; if it is latter it is a 'works contract'. Therefore, in judging whether
the contract is for 'sale' or for 'work and labour' the essence of the
12
1932. R. 2021.
13
[1946] 2 AII ER 694.
14
AIR 1989 SC 962.
15
(2005) 3 SCC 389.
contract or the reality of the transaction as a whole has to be taken into consideration. The
predominant object of the contract, the circumstances of the case and the custom of the trade
provide a guide in deciding whether transaction is a 'sale' or a 'works contract'. Essentially, the
question is of interpretation of the 'contract'. It is settled law that the substance and not the form of
the contract is material in determining the nature of transaction. In 'Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., V.
State of Andhra Pradesh'16, the Supreme Court held that the court may form an opinion that the
contract is one whose main object is transfer of property in a chattel as a chattel to the buyer,
though some work may be required to be done under the contract as ancillary or incidental to the
sale, then it is a sale. If the primary object of the contract is the carrying out of work by bestowal
of labor and services and materials are incidentally used in execution of such work then the contract
is one for work and labor.
With reference to the case laws a contract for sale has hence to be distinguished from a
contract of work. Whether a particular agreement falls within one or the other category depends
upon the object and intent of the parties, as evidenced by the terms of the contract, the
circumstances in which it was entered into and the custom of the trade. The substance of the matter
and not the form is what is of importance. If a contract involves the sale of moveable property as
moveable property, it would constitute a contract for sale. On the other hand, if the contract
primarily involves carrying on of work involving labour and service and the use of materials is
incidental to the execution of the work, the contract would constitute a contract of work and labour.
One of the circumstances which is of relevance is whether the article which has to be delivered
has an identifiable existence prior to its delivery to the purchaser upon the payment of a price. If
the article has an identifiable existence prior to its delivery to the purchaser, and when the title to
the property vests with the purchaser only upon delivery, that is an important indicator to suggest
that the contract is a contract for sale and not a contract for work.

16
(2000) 199 STC 533.
9. CONCLUSION

It is difficult to establish whether a particular contract is ‘contract for work’ or ‘contract of sale’
and rigid and inflexible fast tests cannot be laid down. It depends on main object of the parties,
circumstances and custom of trade. Generally, a contract of sale is a contract whose main object is
the transfer of the property in, and delivery and possession of, a chattel as a chattel to the buyer.
Where the main object of work undertaken by the payee of the price is not the transfer of a chattel
qua chattel, the contract is one for labour and work. The aspects like ownership of material, value
17
of skill and labour compared to value of material can be considered, but these are not conclusive.
Some instances of works contract:

1. An air conditioner manufacturer may undertake a ‘works contract’ for designing, fitting and
commissioning of air conditioning equipment;

2. Laying of pipe line is yet another example of works contract, where passing of property in the
pipe is incidental to works contract;

3. Construction of building.

In these contracts, there is a ‘contract for sale of labour and material’ and not ‘contract of sale’.
Property in air conditioning equipment, pipe line and building passes as an incidental to the works
contract. Here, there is no sale of ‘goods’. It is a ‘works contract’ and not liable to CST.18 As a
result if the nature of transaction involved is composite contract, of service and sale and if the
components of sale element are discernible, then both the components cannot be re-mixed for the
purpose of relevant tax issues around works contracts have always been controversial in relation
to service tax as well as sales tax. Hopefully, these difficulties will be cleared by the comprehensive
Goods and Services Tax.

17
Halsbury’s Laws of England - quoted with approval in State of Gujarat v. Variety Body Builders - AIR 1976 SC
2108; (1976) 38 STC 176 (SC), Same view in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Associated Hotels - (1972) 29 STC 474
(SC); AIR 1972 SC 1131; 1972(2) SCR 937; (1972) 1 SCC 472.
18
The traditional law of the sale of goods, particularly before the 46th Constitutional amendment.
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Websites referred:

• https://www.taxmanagementindia.com/visitor/detail_article.asp?ArticleID=893.
• https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=sale%20or%20works%20contract.
• https://www.caclubindia.com › Experts › Income Tax.

Books referred:
• Avtar Singh, LAW OF SALE OF GOODS, 7th ed. 2011, Eastern Book Company.
• Dinshah Fardunji Mulla, THE SALE OF GOODS ACT AND THE INDIAN
PARTNERSHIP ACT 10th ed. 2016, LexisNexis, Gurgaon, Haryana.
• Madhusudan Saharay, SALES OF GOODS ACT AND HIRE PURCHASE, 3rd ed. 2017,
Universal Law Publishing Co., New Delhi.
• P. Ramanatha Aiyar, LAW OF SALE OF GOODS, 10th ed. 2016, Universal Law
Publishing Co., New Delhi.