1971 Supreme(AP) 95
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : OBUL REDDI, VENKATESWARA RAO
S.R.P.Works and Ruby Press - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 06-18-71
A transaction which results in the transfer of property in finished goods cannot be construed as a works contract.
Headnote:
SALES TAX - Works Contract - Printing of Cinema Tickets - Whether a works contract or sale of goods - Interpretation of Section 2(n) and 2(t) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, a printing press, supplied cinema tickets printed on different color papers and of different denominations to customers within and outside the state. The assessing authority assessed only the value of the paper for printing the tickets and granted exemption for printing charges as labor costs. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, revised the order, holding that the transactions were sales of finished goods and not merely of paper. The Tribunal confirmed the assessment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the transactions were sales of finished goods and not works contracts. The court found that the orders placed by the customers were for the supply of finished products and not for the supply of paper separately and printing separately. The court also found that the property in the goods passed to the buyer only when the finished goods were delivered and not before.
Issues: Whether the transactions were sales of finished goods or works contracts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a transaction which results in the transfer of property in finished goods cannot be construed as a works contract. The court also held that the fact that the finished products (cinema tickets) cannot be sold to the general public is no ground for regarding the contract as a works contract.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revisions filed by the assessee.
( 1 ) THESE two revisions, preferred by the assessee, are directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Tribunal Appeals Nos. 195 and 196 of 1969 confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada and rejecting the contention of the assessee that the work undertaken by the assessee is a works contract and not a sale of goods,
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to these two revisions are these: The petitioner is a printing Press known as M/s. S. R. P. Works and Ruby Press, Kakinada. It supplied cinema tickets printed on different colour papers and of different denominations to the customers, both within the state and outside. Before the customers place the orders for supply of large quantities, they obtain samples and then place orders giving specifications. The printers, while making out bills, gave break up figures, showing the cost of paper and the cost of printing separately and the total cost. No formal agreements were entered into. But orders were placed by the customers stating the quantity required and the type of paper that has to be used for printing the tickets. The assessing authority only assessed onthe value of the paper for printing the tickets and granted exemption in respect of printing charges on the ground that they represent the cost of labour. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, in exercise of his revisional powers, revised the order of the assessing authority holding that the transactions involved are sales of finished goods and not merely of paper and the price of paper cannot be dissociated from printing charges. It is against the order of the deputy Commissioner treating the entile turnover as representing the sales of cinema tickets that the petitioner preferred the appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with the findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner and confirmed the assessment made in respect of the turnover involved in these two cases.
( 3 ) MR. Anantha Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the transactions involved are not works contracts and even if they are not works contracts, the bills presented by the assessee would show that they consisted of two separate or distinct contracts--one for the supply of paper and the other the charges lor printing of tickets. To determine whether there are two contracts one for the supply of paper and the other for printing it is necessary to look into the orders placed by the customers with the petitioner. Usually in commercial transactions of this nature, no written agreements are entered into but only orders are placed, sometimes orally and sometimes in writing and in these cases written orders were placed by the customers. The intention of the parties whether the contract was for sale of finished goods or only for sale of paper can easily be ascertained from a reading of the orders, pursuant to which the printed material was supplied to several customers. The four orders which have been exhibited read :- "1. Order of Sri \enkateswara Palace, venkatagiri Town, Nellore District, dated 25th February, 1964: we are hereunder placing an order for the following tickets at an early date as we are badly in need of the said tickets chair-Yellow-1 to 5,000 bench-Green-I to 10,000 (20,000) floor-Rose-1 to 10,000 (each bundle) (75,000) we are herewith sending Rs. 10 towards advance by M. O. and send us the bill of one lakh tickets through Andhra bank; Venkatagiri. Draft send by v. P. P. Please let us know the rates of out- passes in the samples after which we will order you. Please send us the tickets immediately as we are not having stock. The samples are here- with enclosed. We await to receive your reply. 2. Order of Sesh Mahal, Nellore, dated 17th February, 1964. "we thank you for your kind letter of i5th instant with its enclosures. We give as under our order for the printing and supply of cinema tickets for both of our theatres an