3 judge bench of SC approves ratio of 2 - judge bench decision in Raheja Development on works contract; States do have competence to levy sales tax on sale of goods in an agreement of sale of flat which also has component of deemed sale of goods; Building contracts are species of 'works contract'; "Dominant nature test" has no application in composite contracts; Traditional decisions holding that substance of contract must be seen, have lost significance where transactions are of nature contemplated in Article 366(29-A); Even if dominant intention of  contract is not to transfer property in goods but provide services or ultimate transaction is transfer of immovable property, then also States can levy sales tax on materials used in such works contract; Taxing sale of goods element in 'works contract' under Article 366(29-A)(b) read with Entry 54 List II is permissible even after incorporation of goods, provided tax is directed to value of goods and does not purport to tax transfer of immovable property; If at time of construction and until the construction was completed, there was no contract for construction of building with flat purchaser, goods used in the construction cannot be deemed to have been sold by the builder, since at that time there is no purchaser; SC however clarifies that activity of construction undertaken by the developer would be works contract only from the stage the developer enters into a contract with the flat purchaser; Constitutional validity of Explanation (b)(ii) to Sec. 2(24) in MVAT upheld; SC reads down Rule 58(1A) on valuation to the extent tax is directed to the value of goods at the time of incorporation and does not purport to tax the transfer of immovable property; No merit in challenge to constitutional validity of provisions of Explanation (b)(ii) to Sec. 2(24) of MVAT Act, amended retrospectively : SC