JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna J. - The present revision arises out of an order dated November 30, 1998 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, in Second Appeal No. 388 of 1996. The applicant, a limited company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act is registered, both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of "sprinkler irrigation system" and its installation and erection on works contract. The dispute in the present revision relates to the assessment year 1991-92 with respect to inter-State sale. Orders for erecting and installing the "sprinkler irrigation system" were given to the applicant by the party situate outside the State of U.P. Under the contract, digging of earth, filing of sand, laying of pipes, connecting of pipes with clamps, fixation of sprinklers in the pipes, making the land plain in original shape and connecting with source of water and commissioning the system were required to be carried on by the dealer - applicant. It disclosed taxable turnover at Rs. 97,36,881.94. The assessing authority although accepted the account books of the applicant but levied tax on the amount of Rs. 7,00,000 on the material value of the goods used in the execution of works contract, vide order dated November 28, 1995. The said order has been confirmed by the first appellate authority in first appeal No. 3 of 1996 and by the Tribunal by the order under revision. In the memo of revision, the following four questions have been sought to be raised : "(1) Whether in view of the law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan [1993] 88 STC 204, material moved outside the State of U.P. and used in the execution of works contract are liable to be taxed under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in law in imposing tax on the amount of Rs. 13,96,228.23 which was received by the applicant on account of execution of works contract, whereas the assessing authority himself has levied tax on the material used for the amount of Rs. 7,00,000 in the execution of works contract ? 13,96,228.23 which was received by the applicant on account of execution of works contract, whereas the assessing authority himself has levied tax on the material used for the amount of Rs. 7,00,000 in the execution of works contract ? (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in accepting the contention of the applicant that the works contract cannot be subjected to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act in view of the law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Gannon Dunkerley & Co. [1993] 88 STC 204 ? (4) Whether in any view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and liable to be set aside ?" However, during the course of argument, Sri Bharatji Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the dealer - opposite party, submits only one point in support of the revision. The submission is that under unamended article 366 as also unamended definition of "sale" in section 2(h) mentioned in the Central Sales Tax Act prior to May 13, 2002 works contract is not included in the definition of "sale". He submits that the assessing authority was not justified in bringing the contract in two parts and treating it as sale of the goods, i.e., sprinklers and installation charges, etc., separately. The learned standing counsel, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. In the present case, the facts are not much in dispute. The assessing officer in para 7 of the assessment order has noticed that the dealer - applicant has carried on the works contract for the party situate outside the State of U.P. for worth Rs. 13,96,228.23. The agreement between the parties was produced for verification during the assessment proceedings. On perusal of the account books, it was detected by the assessing authority that in carrying on the works contract the dealer has supplied sprinklers, etc., outside the State of U.P. This supply of goods was ultimately used in carrying on the works contract. The works contract has been bifurcated 40 per cent towards the value of the goods and transportation, 40 per cent towards labour and installation charges and 20 per cent towards the profit. The decision of the apex court in the case of Gannon Dunkerley & Co. The works contract has been bifurcated 40 per cent towards the value of the goods and transportation, 40 per cent towards labour and installation charges and 20 per cent towards the profit. The decision of the apex court in the case of Gannon Dunkerley & Co. [1993] 88 STC 204 was distinguished by the assessing authority on the ground that the dealer has received a lump sum payment on supply as well as for the work carried out on the spot. Thus, the assessing authority has levied the tax. The controversy involved in the present case is no longer res integra and has been set at rest by numerous decision of the apex court. A Constitution Bench of the apex court in Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan [1993] 88 STC 204; [1993] UPTC 416 has examined the matter in great detail. Paragraphs 41 and 44 of the judgment are reproduced below (at page 231 of STC) : "41. It must, therefore, be held that while enacting a law imposing a tax on sale or purchase of goods under entry 54 of the State List read with sub-clause (b) of clause (29A) of article 366 of the Constitution, it is not permissible for the State Legislature to make a law imposing tax on such a deemed sale which constitutes a sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act or an outside sale under section 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act or sale in the course of import or export under section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act. So also it is not permissible for the State Legislature to impose a tax on goods declared to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act except in accordance with the restrictions and conditions contained in section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act. ... 44. The location of the situs of the sale in sales tax legislation of the State would, therefore, have no bearing on the Chargeability of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce since they fall outside the field of legislative competence of the State Legislatures and will have to be excluded while assessing the tax liability under the State legislation. The same is true of sales which are outside the State and sales in the course of import and export. The State Legislature cannot so frame its law as to convert an outside sale or a sale in the course of import and export into a sale inside the State. The question whether a sale is an outside sale or a sale inside the State or whether it is a sale in the course of import or export will have to be determined in accordance with the principles contained in sections 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act and the State Legislature while enacting the sales tax legislation for the State cannot make a departure from those principles." In Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [1978] 42 STC 386, the Supreme Court has held that the receipts from food and drinks supplied to guests staying in a hotel could not be split up into one of service and the other of sale of food and drinks and so, the proprietor, who provides many services in addition to the supply of food was not liable to pay sales tax on the value of the goods supplied by him. The learned standing counsel for the Department also could not dispute the above legal position. In view of the above discussions, the authorities below including the Tribunal were not justified to separate the works contract in two contracts, one for supply of goods and the other towards installation expenses. The contract was one and indivisible. Thus, it is held that the authorities below were not justified in law in imposing tax on the amount of Rs. 13,96,228.23 which was received by the applicant on account of execution of works contract. The assessing authority was not justified in levying the tax on the material used for the amount of Rs. 7,00,000 in execution of works contract. The question of law raised in the revision is therefore, decided in favour of the applicant and against the Department and demand of Central sales tax on supply of sprinklers used in execution of works contract is held contrary to law. The revision succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. Second Appeal No. 388 of 1996 filed before the Tribunal stands allowed. No order as to costs.