TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed form I returns for the year 199293. When their accounts were called for and checked, the first respondent sought an exemption on a particular turnover which related to outright sale of biscuit boxes and labels to a particular customer. The claim for exemption was rejected by an order dated March 31, 1994 passed by the assessing officer. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the transaction was a works contract and hence remitted the matter back to the assessing officer, by an order dated January 20, 1998, with a direction to assess the transaction as works contract. The State filed a further appeal before the Additional Bench of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in MTSA No. 537 of 1999. The Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for sales, the bogus dealers are ready to purchase them well in advance so as to sell their inferior goods at such a higher price. If this is followed even the well established or renowned company or firm will lose their goodwill and thereby they will be going into deterioration of their business. But, without these labels or cartons the bale commodity cannot enter into the field of public market. Nobody will touch it thinking that it is an inferior commodity. Only when it is wrapped with label or carton suitably made for it, the commercial value arises and it can enter the field of public market. In all the sale bills packing and forwarding charges are calculated separately. If not calculated separately, they fix the price inclusive of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STC 556 (SC). (v) A.P. State Electricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise [1994] 95 STC 595 (SC). (vi) Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1997] 106 STC 180 (SC). (vii) Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs [2001] 124 STC 59 (SC). (viii) Sardar Printing Works v. Sales Tax Commissioner [1958] 9 STC 75 (MP). (ix) Saraswati Printing Press v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur [1959] 10 STC 286 (Bom). (x) Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Haji Abdul Majid 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not. It should be remembered that both the above decisions of the apex court were rendered much before an amendment was brought to the definition of the word sale . In Anandam Viswanathan [1989] 73 STC 1 (SC), the assessee entered into contracts with universities and educational institutions for printing question papers. A question arose whether the taxable turnover should include the printing and block-making charges or not. After considering an earlier decision in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Guntur Tobaccos Ltd. [1965] 16 STC 240 (SC), the Supreme Court reiterated that a contract for work in the execution of which goods are used, may take one of the three forms, viz., (i) the contract may be for work to be done for remuneration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xempt. The Supreme Court held that a printed carton is the product of the packaging industry and not the product of the printing industry. Therefore that decision is of no avail to the appellant. A.P. State Electricity Board [1994] 95 STC 595 (SC), is also a case which arose under the Central Excise Act and the Supreme Court held therein that what is important is to find out if the goods are marketable or not, irrespective of whether they are, in fact, marketed or not. One cannot apply that analogy to the labels printed by the first respondent for a particular customer. To say that the labels printed and supplied by the assessee to a particular customer are saleable in the open market, is equivalent to saying that there are spurious g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
