ANSHUMAN SINGH, J. The assessee Hindustan Housing Factory is a public limited company having its office at Jangpur, New Delhi, which has since been renamed as Hindustan Prefab Limited, New Delhi. This company is wholly owned by the Government of India and is specialised in manufacturing prefabricated housing elements. The U. P. State Electricity Board has constructed a power-house at Obra in the district of Mirzapur. The said Board wanted to construct one thousand quarters in the housing colony at Obra and for the said purpose hollow blocks and battens were proposed to be used. An order was issued by the Superintending Engineer, Obra Thermal Civil Construction Circle, U. P. State Electricity Board dated 15th December, 1973 giving contract for fabricating and supplying of housing elements at Obra which was subsequently made part of a formal agreement dated 26th October, 1980 entered into between the parties. The aforesaid letter dated 15th December, 1973, which was also signed on behalf of the assessee in token of acceptance reads as under : " Sub : Award of fabrication and supplying housing elements for 1,000 Nos. houses at Obra. M/s. Hindustan Housing Factory Limited, Jangpura, New Delhi. D/sir, Your offer No. HHF/df/4843 dated September 24, 1973 modified vide your letter No. HHF/df/4842-A dated October 24, 1973 and subsequent discussion for manufacturing and supplying of components for 500 complete houses and for flooring/roofing elements for another 500 houses has been accepted for an amount of Rs. 22,76,382. 40 approximately. Your offer has been accepted on the basis of your complete acceptance of general and special conditions as per form A of contract, technical specifications as per IS Codes 6051 (Part-I) 1971, 2185-1967, 1786-1961, 432-1960, 456-1960 drawing, etc. , with the following overriding conditions : 1. Rates : Rates quoted are ex-your works near the construction site at Obra including loading into vehicle of the contractor brought inside the works premises. Sales tax, if payable, shall be extra. The condition of insurance charges of your above letter has been withdrawn in your subsequent letter No. HHF/de/4842-A dated October 24, 1973. 2. Payment : 25% of the total amount of order shall be payable to you by the Board against bank guarantee/indemnity bond. Payment terms shall be as per form A. 3. Service : Potable water shall be supplied free of cost. 2. Payment : 25% of the total amount of order shall be payable to you by the Board against bank guarantee/indemnity bond. Payment terms shall be as per form A. 3. Service : Potable water shall be supplied free of cost. Any instruction, corrigenda, addenda, progress schedule to be issued from this office from time to time will also be acceptable to you. This acceptance of tender is for the quoted rates which will be firm till the completion of entire job. The price schedule is enclosed. The time of completion for the above work shall be 12 months reckoned 3 months after the date of issue of this letter of intent, i. e. , December 15, 1973. You are required to deposit an amount of Rs. 68,292. 00 towards 3 per cent initial security. This amount can be deposited either in the form of bank guarantee or in the form of an indemnity bond. The above bond should be submitted within a week of issue of this letter. The draft contract is under preparation in this office and you would be required to sign the agreement when it is ready on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 2. 50 in duplicate, the cost of which will be borne by you. You should deposit a sum of Rs. 83 only in the form of bank draft drawn in favour of Member-Secretary, UPSEB Shakti Bhawan, 14, Ashok Marg, Lucknow towards the legal vetting charges of contract documents. Please acknowledge the receipt of this order. " The aforesaid letter also contained a schedule of price for hollow blocks and battens which is as under : " Sl. Item Quantity Rate Amount No. 1. Fabrication and supplying of hollow blocks of nominal size 400 x 200 x 200 mm. for walls. 6,37,200 No. 1. 25 7,24,000. 00 2. Fabrication and supplying of hollow blocks of nominal size 400 x 200 x 100 mm. for partition. 96,040 No. 0. 75 72,030. 00 3. Fabrication and supplying of hollow blocks of nominal size 525 x 260 x 14 mm. for roofs. 3,14,280 No. 1. 85 5,82,522. 00 4. Fabrication and supplying of battens of following nominal sizes for roofs : Size No. Rate 3. 00 M 3,350 11. 00 per R. M. 2. 3 M 3,360 10. 20 per R. M. 4. 0 M 1,160 13. 75 per R. M. 3. 2 M 1,200 12. for roofs. 3,14,280 No. 1. 85 5,82,522. 00 4. Fabrication and supplying of battens of following nominal sizes for roofs : Size No. Rate 3. 00 M 3,350 11. 00 per R. M. 2. 3 M 3,360 10. 20 per R. M. 4. 0 M 1,160 13. 75 per R. M. 3. 2 M 1,200 12. 70 per R. M. 2. 3 M 2,640 10. 10 per R. M. 3. 0 M 720 11. 00 per R. M. 3. 3 M 600 12. 70 per R. M. 2. 5 M 1,200 10. 20 per R. M. 2. 0 M 480 10. 10 per R. M. 1. 4 M 360 10. 10 per R. M. 3. 7 M 960 12. 70 per R. M. 4. 8 M 320 15. 15 per R. M. 3. 5 M 720 12. 70 per R. M. 4. 4 M 160 15. 15 per R. M. 2. 4 M 80 10. 20 per R. M. 3. 9 M 800 13. 75 per R. M. 3. 6 M 400 12. 70 per R. M. 3. 5 M 720 12. 70 per R. M. 4. 4 M 400 15. 15 per R. M. 4. 8 M 160 15. 15 per R. M. 3. 3 M 240 12. 70 per R. M. 4. 4 M 400 15. 15 per R. M. 2. 00 M 960 11. 00 per R. M. Total 3,35,384. 40 -------------- 22,76,382. 40 Say 22,76,382. 00 (Rupees twenty-two lacs seventy-six thousand three hundred and eighty-two only ). Sd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " The other conditions of the contract so far as relevant were as under : " 1. The work is to be carried out at Obra Thermal Project Colony, Obra, Mirzapur. 2. All items of work shall be executed in strict accordance with the latest relevant ISI Code and according to the specifications laid down by the Executive Engineer, Orba Thermal Civil Construction Division III, U. P. State Electricity Board, Obra, Mirzapur. 3. If for some reason the Board is unable at any time to issue materials as mentioned hereinafter and the work has to be stopped for want of materials the contractor shall not be entitled to any monetary claim arising out of such circumstances. 3. If for some reason the Board is unable at any time to issue materials as mentioned hereinafter and the work has to be stopped for want of materials the contractor shall not be entitled to any monetary claim arising out of such circumstances. He shall, however, be granted time-limit extension to the extent of such period as his work remains stopped for want of materials to be issued by the Board. The contractor shall bring such circumstances to the notice of the Engineer-in-charge within twenty-four hours of the arising of such situations. 4. The materials to be issued by the U. P. State Electricity Board, shall be issued at Boards Store at Obra Colony or at Obra Thermal Power Station, Obra, Mirzapur. Nothing shall be paid extra for carriage of materials from the place of storage to site of construction. If any material is consumed in excess of the standard schedule of construction, the cost of the same shall be recovered from the contractor at rates mentioned against each : Material Rate on which excess consumption is to be recovered. 1. Cement Rs. 24 per bag. 2. Steel Rs. 3,200 per M. T. Statement of consumption of the above materials shall be drawn out and submitted for scrutiny at the time of submitting each running bill. 5. The issue of cement and steel shall be regulated on the basis of indent submitted by the contractor or his authorised agent having power of attorney at least 10 days in advance. 6. The contractor shall give proper receipt in respect of all materials issued to him by the Board for use on the works. If the contractor fails to give the receipts, his work will be stopped entirely at his own risk and cost. 7. All the specifications followed in respect of all the items are subject to alterations as per directions (in writing) of the Engineer-in-charge. In case of any dispute regarding specifications, the decision of the Superintending Engineer shall be final and binding on the contractor. 8. All cement concrete will be mixed with a mechanical mixer of approved design. No hand mixing will be done. 9. To ensure proper compaction, concrete vibrator of approved design shall be used by the contractor. 10. In case of any dispute regarding specifications, the decision of the Superintending Engineer shall be final and binding on the contractor. 8. All cement concrete will be mixed with a mechanical mixer of approved design. No hand mixing will be done. 9. To ensure proper compaction, concrete vibrator of approved design shall be used by the contractor. 10. No claim shall be entertained for the labour rendered idle due to stoppage of machinery or due to shortage of materials to be supplied by the department or due to change in design. 11. The quantities given are only approximate and no claim shall be entertained against the department for any variation. 12. The contractor shall be liable to pay compensation to his worker as per the Workmens Compensation Act for loss of life, injuries and damages to Government property or otherwise. 13. The contractor shall be present at the time of taking measurements. He shall be informed when measurements shall be taken by the Engineer-in-charge. The measurements taken shall be final and binding upon the contractor. 14. The contractor will have to sign the measurements book in token of acceptance of measurements. If he refuses to sign the same the matter shall be REFERRED TO the Engineer-in-charge, whose decision shall be binding on the contractor. 15. Deleted. 16. No claim shall be entertained for consideration which is not posted to the Engineer-in-charge under registered cover within 24 hours of the occurrence of the said claim. 17. The name of authorised agent shall be intimated in writing to the Engineer-in-charge. 18. The Executive Engineer, Obra, Thermal Civil Construction Division III, Obra, Mirzapur shall be the Engineer of the contract for the proper execution of the contract. " The letters sent by the assessee dated 24th September, 1973 and 24th October, 1973 also formed part of the contract entered into between the parties. 18. The Executive Engineer, Obra, Thermal Civil Construction Division III, Obra, Mirzapur shall be the Engineer of the contract for the proper execution of the contract. " The letters sent by the assessee dated 24th September, 1973 and 24th October, 1973 also formed part of the contract entered into between the parties. In their letter dated 24th September, 1973 the assessee has written : " We are pleased to confirm that we will be in position to manufacture and supply precast walling blocks and flooring system ex-our temporary works near the construction site, at the rate given in the annexure B enclosed herewith which, subject to the terms and conditions given in annexure A were revised and the revised terms became annexure A of letter dated 24th October, 1973 which were to override the normal conditions of contract as per form A of the U. P. State Electricity Board. The annexure B of letter dated 24th September, 1973 is to the following effect : Sl. Description Rate/each No. Rs. 1. Walling hollow blocks of nominal size 400 x 200 x 200 mms. 1. 25 2. Hollow blocks for partition walls of nominal size 400 x 200 x 100 mms. 0. 75 3. Hollow blocks for roofing/flooring of nominal size 525 x 250 x 140 mm. to be placed 6. 10 mms. spacing 1. 85 4. R. C. battens of nominal following lengths : (a) Less than 2. 00 metres 10. 10 per met. (b) From 2. 00 to less than 2. 6 metres 10. 20 " " (c) From 2. 6 to less than 3. 2 metres 11. 00 " " (d) From 3. 2 to less than 3. 8 metres 12. 70 " " (e) From 3. 8 to less than 4. 2 metres 13. 75 " " (f) From 4. 2 to less than 4. 8 metres 15. 15 " " Notes. 1. The above rates are subject to the terms and conditions as stated in annexure A enclosed herewith. The terms and conditions for manufacture of precast complete blocks for Thermal Power Project given in annexure A of letter dated 24th October, 1973 are as under : 1. Rates.- The rates quoted are ex-our works near the construction site (including loading into vehicles of the contractee brought inside the works premises ). Sales tax, if payable, shall be extra. 2. Rates.- The rates quoted are ex-our works near the construction site (including loading into vehicles of the contractee brought inside the works premises ). Sales tax, if payable, shall be extra. 2. Design.- The products offered will be in accordance with designs approved by the contractee. We shall guarantee structural safety for relevant loading as per Indian Standard. We also guarantee that the durability of structures made with these components will be more than that of the prevalent construction methods of these quarters at the projects. 3. Validity.- The rates are valid for acceptance up to 24th November, 1973 after which these will be subject to our confirmation. 4. Payments.- (i) 25 per cent of the total amount of the order shall be payable to HHF at the time of confirmation of the order against indemnity bond. (ii) Fall payment shall become due immediately after delivery of the products or after 30 days of the despatch of the intimation about the availability of the products for delivery, whichever is earlier. (iii) The advance payment and recoveries for supply of materials shall be adjusted on pro rata basis in bills against progressive deliveries. 5. Department assistance.- (i) The contractee will give fairly levelled land of area 2 hectares and of approximately square dimensions (length, breadth not exceeding 1. 5 ). (ii) The contractee will provide as and when available the following accommodation to permanent staff members of HHF posted at site and charge standard rent as applicable to Government undertakings : (a) One quarter Type-III. (b) Two quarters Type-II. (c) Four quarters Type-I. (iii) The contractee shall make available workshop facilities for the repair of plant and machinery of HHF used for proposed construction on reasonable rates. 6. Inspection.- Inspection of items, if desired, may be made by the contractee in the factory premises, before taking delivery. HHF shall not entertain any claim regarding damages in handling of components subsequently. 7. Testing.- The testing of representative samples of initial batches of products may be got carried out at HHF site factory. 8. Modification.- Order, once placed, shall not be cancelled, reduced or modified due to any reason whatsoever, without mutual consent. 9. Supply of basic raw materials.- (i) The contractee will deliver to HHF the following basic raw materials ex-HHF works near the construction site at the rate as stated below : Graded stone aggregate of size 12 mm. 8. Modification.- Order, once placed, shall not be cancelled, reduced or modified due to any reason whatsoever, without mutual consent. 9. Supply of basic raw materials.- (i) The contractee will deliver to HHF the following basic raw materials ex-HHF works near the construction site at the rate as stated below : Graded stone aggregate of size 12 mm. and down 7. 8 mm. and down : @ Rs. 25. 00 per M. T. Coarse size @ Rs. 20. 00 per M. T. (ii) The contractee will also supply the following basic raw materials ex-its own stores near HHF works at the rates as stated below (including its own storage charges) : (a) Portland cement (in non-returnable bags) Rs. 240 per M. T. (b) Grade-I mild steel of all diameters Rs. 1,600 per M. T. (c) High yield strength deformed bars of all diameters Rs. 1,600 per M. T. (d) Annealed wires Rs. 2,200 per M. T. (e) Fly ash. Rs. 0. 50 per bag of 40 kgs. 10. Deleted. 11. Services.- (i) The contractee will supply electricity connection at one central point at HHF site factory. HHF will pay for the electricity consumed at rates approved for similar establishment at site. (ii) Raw water usable for concrete work shall be supplied free of cost at one central point at the HHF factory site. (iii) Charges for electricity and water for quarters occupied by HHF staff shall be payable as applicable. 12. HHF will pay for the electricity consumed at rates approved for similar establishment at site. (ii) Raw water usable for concrete work shall be supplied free of cost at one central point at the HHF factory site. (iii) Charges for electricity and water for quarters occupied by HHF staff shall be payable as applicable. 12. Force majeure clauses.- If, at any time during the continuance of the contract, performance in whole or in part by either party of any obligation under this contract shall be prevented or delayed by reason of any war, hostility acts of the public enemy, civil disturbances, sabotage, fires, flood, explosions, epidemic, quarantine restriction, strikes, lockout or act of God or due to any reason beyond the control of either party (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the event) then provided notice of the happening of any such event is given by either party to the other within twenty-one days from the date of occurrence thereof, neither party shall due to reason of such event be entitled to terminate this contract nor shall either party have any claim for damages against the other in respect of such non-performance or delay in performances and works under the contract shall be resumed as soon as practicable, after such event has come to an end or ceased to exist. 13. Deleted. 14. Works on Sundays, holidays and in night shifts.- The contractee shall allow HHF and offer the reqnired facilities for work on Sundays, holidays and in night shifts for the completion of work, whenever necessary. 15. Subletting.- HHF shall have complete freedom to sublet parts of the work to any contractor of its own choice with prior approval of the contractee. " The letter dated 26th October, 1979, the contents of which are reproduced below, was issued by the Executive Engineer, Obra Colony, Civil Maintenance Division-III, U. P. State Electricity Board, to the assessee, which was to form part of the contract : " Subject : Manufacture and supplying prefab components for 1,000 houses in Obra Colony. Dear Sir, As per clause 4 of the conditions of the contract REFERRED TO in Award Letter No. 106 OTCCC/c-1/iii/hh dated 15th December, 1973 we were to issue the raw materials such as cement, steel aggregate, etc. , required for the manufacture of the components required for 1,000 houses to be constructed at Obra. Dear Sir, As per clause 4 of the conditions of the contract REFERRED TO in Award Letter No. 106 OTCCC/c-1/iii/hh dated 15th December, 1973 we were to issue the raw materials such as cement, steel aggregate, etc. , required for the manufacture of the components required for 1,000 houses to be constructed at Obra. For the purpose of control to ensure proper utilisation of such raw materials made available by us to you, the recovery has been made at the specified (fixed rates mentioned in the conditions REFERRED TO above) from various running bills. Further, the property in the raw materials made available for the manufacture of components has all along been vested with us and you had no authority to sell/dispose of/utilise for the purpose other than the manufacture of components. This letter will however, form part of the contract. " For the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, the supplies made by the applicant to the U. P. State Electricity Board were taxed by the assessing authority. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee was that the contract which was entered into between the Board and the assessee was a contract for work and not a contract for sale and as such the same was not exigible to sales tax. The said contention raised on behalf of the assessee before the assessing authority was not accepted and the supplies were held to be exigible to sales tax. The assessee preferred first appeals under section 9 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter REFERRED TO as "the Act") against the assessment orders before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax. The appeal regarding the assessment year 1976-77 was allowed by Mr. Kunwar Saxena, Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax (as he then was) by an order dated 5th May, 1982. The appeals regarding the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 were allowed by Sri R. C. Joshi, by an order dated 10th November, 1982 following the decision in appeal of Mr. Kunwar Saxena, Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), for the assessment year 1976-77. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. , preferred second appeals under section 10 of the Act before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Allahabad Bench-II, Allahabad. Kunwar Saxena, Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), for the assessment year 1976-77. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. , preferred second appeals under section 10 of the Act before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Allahabad Bench-II, Allahabad. The Sales Tax Tribunal took the view that the contract was a contract for sale and not a works contract and by a common order dated 30th November, 1987 allowed the appeals, reversed the judgments of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and restored the assessment orders passed by the assessing authority regarding the assessment years in question. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal the assessee has come to this Court in the instant revisions under section 11 of the Act. Since all the three revisions arise our of a common order passed by the Tribunal, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. I have heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, and Sri V. M. Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue. The only question that arises for consideration in these revisions is whether the contract entered into between the assessee and the U. P. State Electricity Board was a contract for sale or a works contract. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to whether a particular contract is a contract of sale or of works contract but the same has to be judged keeping in view the totality of the terms and conditions of the contract and the relevant circumstances necessitating such contract and the same will depend on the facts and circumstances of each contract entered into between the parties. However, the Supreme Court in various cases has laid down certain tests which are to be applied in deciding the controversy in hand. The distinction between a contract of sale and a contract for work and labour has been pointed out in Halsburys Laws of England, 3rd Edition, Volume 34, para 3 at page 6 which has been quoted in the order of the Tribunal. The distinction between a contract of sale and a contract for work and labour has been pointed out in Halsburys Laws of England, 3rd Edition, Volume 34, para 3 at page 6 which has been quoted in the order of the Tribunal. The Supreme Court in Ram Singh & Sons Engineering Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. [1979] 43 STC 195; 1979 UPTC 548 on the basis of the distinction pointed out in Halsburys Laws of England came to the conclusion that the primary test is whether 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 or it is carrying out of work by bestowal of labour and service and materials are used in execution of such work. The aforesaid test has been recognised and approved in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in Ram Singh & Sons case [1979] 43 STC 195; 1979 UPTC 548 while coming to the conclusion that the contract involved in that case was a contract for work and not for sale applied the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Purshottam Premji [1970] 26 STC 38, State of Rajasthan v. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. [1969] 24 STC 349 and Sentinel Rolling Shutters & Engineering Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra [1978] 42 STC 409; 1979 UPTC 872. A perusal of the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) dated 5th May, 1982 clearly indicates that following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Singh & Sons case [1979] 48 STC 195; 1979 UPTC 548, he came to the conclusion that the contract in question was a contract for work and not for sale. A perusal of the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) dated 5th May, 1982 clearly indicates that following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Singh & Sons case [1979] 48 STC 195; 1979 UPTC 548, he came to the conclusion that the contract in question was a contract for work and not for sale. The Sales Tax Tribunal while reversing the aforesaid order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) has REFERRED TO scores of decisions but it is very surprising that the decision which was mainly relied upon by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) in recording a finding in favour of the assessee has not even been mentioned and the Tribunal very conveniently omitted to refer to the aforesaid decision and came to a definite conclusion on the basis of other cases mentioned in the order of the Tribunal, which, in my opinion, were not applicable to the facts of the case. It is also significant to refer at this stage to the factual findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) which were based on the basis of the terms and conditions contained in the contract. The following findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) are very relevant for appreciating the nature of the contract in question which are as under : " Rajya vidyut dwara apurti kachcha mal jaise cement ret loha pani adi se apilkarta ne housing elements ka nirman kiya tha. Appealkarta ne soyam kisi prakar ka koi kachcha mal nahin kharida tha. Apurti kiye gaye sabhi kachche mal pani ko chodkar ki rikovari nirdharit daron per parishad dwara ki gayi thi. Is prakar rikovari karne ka ek matra ud-deshya yeh tha ki appealkarta housing elements ke nirman mein usi kachche mal ka hi upyog kare tatha apurti kiye gaye kachche mal ka anyatha kahin asthantaran athwa bikri na kar sake. Is prakar parishad dwara diya gaya kachcha mal appealkarta ke pas trust per rakha gaya tha tatha appealkarta ne iski koi kharidari parishad se nahin ki thi. Sabhi prasangik samai per kachache mal ka swamitwa parishad ka hi raha. Apilkarta ne apne visheshagta evam anubhav ke adhar par housing elements ka nirman kiya tha tatha is sambandh mein parishad se kiya gaya anubandh vastav mein labour contract tha. Sabhi prasangik samai per kachache mal ka swamitwa parishad ka hi raha. Apilkarta ne apne visheshagta evam anubhav ke adhar par housing elements ka nirman kiya tha tatha is sambandh mein parishad se kiya gaya anubandh vastav mein labour contract tha. " It may be noted that the Tribunal has taken the view that the ownership in the materials for which payment was made or agreed to be made would stand transferred to the assessee as soon as the materials were transferred. It appeared to the Tribunal that the letter dated 26th October, 1979 REFERRED TO above mentioning that the property in the raw materials made available for the manufacture of components had all along been vested with the U. P. State Electricity Board, had been brought into existence with the object of evading liability for the payment of tax and it did not fit in with the intention of the parties as expressed in the original letters exchanged in the year 1973. This view of the Tribunal is based on no materials and does not appear to be correct. A perusal of the letter dated 26th October, 1979 indicates that it was issued for the purpose of clarifying clause 4 of the contract and to ensure proper utilisation of raw materials made available by the U. P. State Electricity Board to the assessee. The recovery had been made at the specified rates mentioned in the conditions of the contract from the various running bills. The aforesaid letter also clarified that the property in raw materials made available by the U. P. State Electricity Board to the assessee for the manufacture of components has all along been vested with the U. P. State Electricity Board and the assessee had no authority to sell/dispose of/utilise for the purpose other than the manufacture of components. It was also made clear that this letter would form part of the contract. It is, therefore, apparent that till the relevant times the property in the raw materials made available by the U. P. State Electricity Board to the assessee vested with the U. P. State Electricity Board and not with the assessee. In this view of the matter as indicated above the various decisions relied upon by the Tribunal stand distinguished. It is, therefore, apparent that till the relevant times the property in the raw materials made available by the U. P. State Electricity Board to the assessee vested with the U. P. State Electricity Board and not with the assessee. In this view of the matter as indicated above the various decisions relied upon by the Tribunal stand distinguished. The Tribunal was also very much obsessed by the fact that the assessee placed reliance on the case of Sabarmati Reti Udyog Kamdar Sahakari Mandal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat State [1972] 29 STC 419 (Guj) which was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sabarmati Reti Udyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd. [1976] 38 STC 203; 1976 STI 119. Assuming that the test laid down by the Gujarat High Court in Sabarmati Reti Udyog Kamdar Sahakari Mandal Ltd. [1972] 29 STC 419 was set aside but none the less the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Singh & Sons case [1979] 43 STC 195; 1979 UPTC 548 still holds the field of law and the same having not been set aside it was the bounden duty of the Tribunal to have applied to the facts of the aforesaid case as well as the principles laid down in that case. It is true that the distinction in marginal case is very thin but applying the test as laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Singh & Sons case [1979] 43 STC 195; 1979 UPTC 548 and the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), which are fully supported by the terms and conditions entered into between the parties, I am of opinion that the contract in hand was a works contract and not a contract for sale and the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Learned Standing Counsel urged that some of the conditions laid down in the contract demolishes the case of the assessee. I am afraid that the contention raised on behalf of the Revenue cannot be accepted inasmuch as the contract has to be read as a whole and some of the terms cannot be relied upon in isolation while deciding the controversy like the present one. In the result the revisions succeed and are allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal dated 30th November, 1987 is quashed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. In the result the revisions succeed and are allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal dated 30th November, 1987 is quashed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under section 11 (8) of the Act. Petitions allowed. .