IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 140 of 2008() ------------------------- TA.28/2007 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KOZHIKODE. .................... APPELLANT/ASSESSEE -------------------------------------- NATIONAL ENGINEERING COMPANY P.K.COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, CHEROOTTY ROAD KOZHIKODE-673 032 (REPRESENTED BY PARTNER SREEPRASAD) BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): REVENUE/RESPONDENT --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON 26/08/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.140 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The revision is filed against order of the Tribunal confirming disallowance of exemption claimed by the petitioner on subsequent interstate sales under Section 6(2) of the CST Act. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that even though petitioner executed the work, the contract is divisible, one for supply and the other for work and services. Even though tender submitted by petitioner is not produced in court, the work order issued is produced as Annexure-B. It is clear from the work order that the work undertaken by the petitioner is one for electrification of the plant for the customer. The contract obviously is a works contract and there is nothing to indicate that the contracts have separate existence in as much as if the petitioner fails to execute the work, the sale made by him would be treated as completion of one aspect of the contract. In other words, the contract is indivisible and the Tribunal held so. We find no 2 ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The S.T. Revision is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms