TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is an inter-State sale or a works contract, is the issue raised by the Revenue in the present appeals. We have heard Mr. D. Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant/State and Mr. P. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. The first respondent was assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the year 1997-98. Their accounts were later called for and checked. The first respondent claimed exemption in respect of (i) inter-State coolie printing works and (ii) printing works executed for a single user. The Commercial Tax Officer passed an assessment order dated August 31, 1999 allowing exemption on inter-State printing coolie receipts. But the claim for exemption in respect of printing works for a single user, was disallowed and the claim for concessional rate of tax in respect of interState sales against C forms was also rejected. The appeal filed by the first respondent was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by an order dated January 11, 2001. Therefore, the first respondent-assessee filed a Second Appeal in MTA No. 469 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Bench of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Works v. Sales Tax Commissioner [1958] 9 STC 75 (MP). (ix) Saraswathi Printing Press v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur [1959] 10 STC 286 (Bom). (x) Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Haji Abdul Majid and Sons [1963] 14 STC 435 (All). (xi) P.T. Varghese v. State of Kerala [1976] 37 STC 171 (Ker). (xii) M.P. State Co-operative Press Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax [1988] 68 STC 245 (MP). (xiii) State of Tamil Nadu v. Papco Offset Printing Works [2000] 118 STC 160 (Mad). (xiv) Palakkad Dist. Co-op. Printing Press Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2004] 135 STC 207 (Ker). (xv) Nathan and Company v. Commercial Tax Officer, Trichy ([W.P. (MD) No. 2607 of 2004, decided on July 18, 2007 Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)). At the outset, we are of the considered view that there is no necessity for us, to undertake a long and weary journey into the question of law, especially in view of the very findings of fact recorded by the assessing officer. The findings of fact recorded by the assessing officer, are as follows: It was true that the dealers have printed and supplied labels as per specifications, designs and general layout of the customers with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 'labels' only and to get the items printed from them as claimed by the dealers. The use and consequent passing of the property in the paper, ink, etc., are primary to the transactions and not incidental as claimed by the dealers. This kind of transactions are only contract of sale of printed materials and not works contract. From the portion of the assessment order extracted above, it is clear that what was supplied by the dealer was only labels on which certain particulars had been printed to suit the requirements of a particular customer. The labels, by themselves, cannot really be sold in the open market, since without the product of the customer being packed on any package material, there is no use for the labels. It is not and it cannot be the case of the appellants that persons who manufacture spurious goods under the very same brand name, had an opportunity to buy these labels, so as to pass off their goods as that of the customers of the first respondent-dealer. Therefore even on factual findings, the orders of the assessing officer and the appellate authority, cannot be sustained. Hence the Tribunal and the learned judge, were perfectly right in their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the contract. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held in Anandam Viswanathan [1989] 73 STC 1, that in each case the nature of the contract and the transaction must be found out. Paragraph 27 of the said decision reads as follows: (page 14) 27. In our opinion, in each case the nature of the contract and the transaction must be found out. And this is possible only when the intention of the parties is found out. The fact that in the execution of a contract for work some materials are used and the property in the goods so used, passes to the other party, the contractor undertaking to do the work will not necessarily be deemed, on that account, to sell the materials. Whether or not and which part of the job-work relates to that depends, as mentioned hereinbefore, on the nature of the transaction. A contract for work in the execution of which goods are used may take any one of the three forms as mentioned by this court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Guntur Tobaccos Ltd. [1965] 16 STC 240 (SC). The decision in Rollatainers Ltd. [1994] 95 STC 556 (SC) arose out of the Central Excise Act, where the products of the printing industry were exempt. The Supreme Court held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
