Judgment :- BAKTHAVATSALAM, J. This tax case is preferred against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), against the order of assessment passed for the assessment year 1978-79. The petitioner-assessee disputed the turnover of Rs. 39, 063. The assessee had undertaken lump sum contract of supplying and fixing of doors and windows. This is the turnover which is sought to be assessed by the authorities below. The assessing authority, in his assessment, points out the objection as follows : "Works contract for Rs. 39, 063.15. This is lump sum indivisible works contract for the supply and fixing of doors and windows at the customers' premises. We are enclosing herewith copies of (photostat) of the works order/quotations in support of our stand." After pointing out the objection as above, the assessing officer came to the conclusion that the transaction could not be treated as works contract, in the absence of positive proof. He came to the conclusion that there is no agreement or no proof in the accounts or the sale bills that the door frames had actually been fixed on the buildings and particularly there is no evidence to show who transported the door frames to the site. On appeal, the first appellate authority, after considering the orders passed by the assessing authority and after referring to the bills that charges have been made for supply and fixing of doors and ventilators, came to the conclusion, just because the customer had placed order for supply and fixing of doors and ventilators, the assessee will not be automatically eligible for exemption as relating to works contract. The first appellate authority relied upon a decision of this Court in A.R. Brothers v. Government of Tamil Nadu. On appeal, the Tribunal referred to the decision of this Court in A.R. Brothers v. Government of Tamil Nadu and came to the conclusion that the facts of this case also were similar to that of the case decided by the Division Bench of this Court cited supra. The Tribunal further held that prima facie there is evidence of contract of sale and rejected the plea of the assessee that they had taken lump sum works contract for the supply and fixing of doors and ventilators. Against this order of the Tribunal, the petitioner-assessee is before us. 2. Mr. The Tribunal further held that prima facie there is evidence of contract of sale and rejected the plea of the assessee that they had taken lump sum works contract for the supply and fixing of doors and ventilators. Against this order of the Tribunal, the petitioner-assessee is before us. 2. Mr. S. Ramanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-assessee, contended that by no stretch of imagination, the transaction in question could be called as works contract (sic), as the contract between the parties is clearly shown in the invoices. Learned counsel has produced before us the concerned invoice with regard to the revision before us and it contains that : "doors and windows made according to the approved blue print of your engineer and fixing the shutters." Relying upon the invoices and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Nenu Ram and also in Vanguard Rolling. Shutters & Steel Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, learned counsel for the assessee contends that the price charged by the assessee from the customer was one lump sum without at all specifying as to what part was meant for the materials used or fabricated and what part for the services or labour put in by the assessee. Learned counsel points out that the process involved in the making of doors and windows and their actual fitting to the premises in the site was a continuous one and was completed only when erection was completed in every way. As such, learned counsel states that the contract was works contract and is not exigible to sales tax. 3. Per contra, Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), tries to support the order of the Tribunal relying upon the judgment, as cited supra. 4. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee as well as that of the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) for the Revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee has produced before us, as we have already stated, copies of the orders and invoices. 4. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee as well as that of the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) for the Revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee has produced before us, as we have already stated, copies of the orders and invoices. The copy of a sample of it is extracted below "Kindly arrange to supply and fix up the items in our building afore-mentioned ..............." The invoice shows, " doors and windows made according to the approved blue print of your engineer and fixing the shutters." The rate given is for the number of doors and windows according to square foot, i.e., at Rs. 15 per square foot. When we consider the facts of the case before us, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner-assessee undertook to manufacture doors and windows according to the specification given by the engineers and also undertook to fix the shutters. So, if the law laid down by the apex Court is applied to the facts of the case on hand, it is clear that the price charged by the assessee from the customers was one lump sum. The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the issue with regard to the manufacture, supply and fixing of iron shutters at customer's premises for lump sum payment in Vanguard Rolling Shutters & Steel Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Supreme Court observed at page 375 : "The question as to under what circumstances a contract can be said to be a works contract is not free from difficulty and has to depend on the facts of each case. It is difficult to lay down any rule of universal application, but there are some well-recognised tests which are laid down by decided cases of this Court which afford guidelines for determining as to whether a contract in question is a works contract or a contract for supply of goods. One of the important tests is to find out whether the contract is primarily a contract for supply of materials at a price agreed to between the parties for the materials so supplied and the work or service rendered is incidental to the execution of the contract. If so, the contract is one for sale of materials and the sale proceeds would be exigible to sales tax. If so, the contract is one for sale of materials and the sale proceeds would be exigible to sales tax. On the other hand, where the contract is primarily a contract for work and labour and materials are supplied in execution of such contract, there is no contract for sale of materials but it is a works contract." The apex Court of the land has held in State of Rajasthan v. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. that the test in each case is whether the object of the party sought to be taxed is that the chattel as chattel passes to the other party and the services rendered in connection with the installation are under a separate contract or are incidental to the execution of the contract of sale. It has been reiterated again by the apex Court of the land in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Purshottam Premji, in the following terms : "The primary difference between a contract for work or service and a contract for sale of goods is that in the former there is in the person performing work or rendering service no property in the thing produced as a whole ...... In the case of a contract for sale, the thing produced as a whole has individual existence as the sole property of the party who produced it, at some time before delivery, and the property therein passes only under the contract relating thereto to the other party for price." So, if the test propounded by the apex Court in the land is applied to the case on hand, we have no hesitation to hold that the transaction in question is of works contract and cannot be said to be a contract of sale. However, the decision relied upon by the lower authorities, including the Tribunal, reported in A.R. Brothers v. Government of Tamil Nadu turned upon the facts of that case. In that case, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that with regard to the nature of transaction the Division Bench found that neither the conditions of the tender nor the correspondence that passed between the department and the assessee disclosed any obligation on the part of the assessee to fix the chairs on the ground to make it as part of the building itself. So, the Division Bench came to the conclusion with regard to the facts of the particular case. So, the Division Bench came to the conclusion with regard to the facts of the particular case. As the apex Court has already held every case in such transaction has to be decided on particular facts and no inflexible rule can be laid down. As we have already held the transaction before us cannot be treated as a contract of sale and it has to be held only as a works contract. On the view we take, the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The tax revision case is allowed. No costs.