Judges : P.GOVINDA NAIR,T.KOCHU THOMMEN
P.T.VARGHESE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA - Respondent
Case No : T. R. C. No. 76, 77, 78 of 1973
Decided On : 09/10/1975
Advocates Appeared :
U. K. Ramakrishnan; For Petitioners Government Pleader; For Respondents
Sales Tax - Assessment of printed materials - Kerala Sales Tax Act - Section 42 - The court held that the printed materials such as bill books, vouchers, receipt books, letter-heads, and notices are not paper, but finished products other than paper products, and as such are liable to be taxed.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, a press owner, was assessed to sales tax for the alleged sale of bill books, vouchers, etc. The assessee contended that he was not a dealer but only executed works contracts using his own paper.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the printed materials were not mere paper but finished products, and therefore liable to be taxed. However, it held that the printing of question papers was a contract for work and labor and not liable to be taxed under the Sales Tax Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the contracts were for the sale of paper, work and labor, or printed materials, and whether the charges realized by the assessee were liable to be taxed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous decisions to determine the nature of the contracts and held that the printed materials were finished products other than paper products, and therefore taxable. It also distinguished between contracts for work and labor and contracts for the sale of goods.
Final Decision: The Tax Revision Cases were dismissed, and the court directed the Sales Tax Officer to quantify the charges realized by the assessee for question papers and separate them from the taxable turnovers of other products.
1. The assessee in all these Tax Revision Cases is the same person. These cases arise from a common order of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, relating to the assessment years 1964 65, 1965 66 and 1966 67. The questions of law which arise for our consideration in all the three cases are identical. Therefore we propose to dispose of these cases by a common judgment.
2. The assessee has been conducting a Press under the name and style of St. George Press at Irinjalakuda. He prints bill books, vouchers, receipt books, letter-heads, question papers and notices as ordered by his clients. He uses his own paper for printing these materials.
3. The assessee was assessed to Sales Tax by the Sales Tax Officer in respect of the above-mentioned periods in relation to the turnovers represented by the alleged sale of the said bill books, vouchers etc. The assessment was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner subject to certain modifications. On further appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
4. The assessee had contended before the authorities that he was not a dealer. He only executed works contract, for the purpose of which he used his own paper. He charged his clients for the cost of the paper as well as for the remuneration for work and service. He had produced his order books and bill books before the assessing authority as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. According to him these documents fully supported his contentions. The assessee maintained that the sale of paper used for printing could not be taxed under the Sales Tax Act as he was not the first seller of paper in the State. The remuneration received by him from the clients for the work and labour could not also be taxed under the
Act.
5. The Tribunal, by its order dated 17 71973, rejected the contentions of the assessee and held as follows:
'paper, when printed, becomes printed material, which is different from paper and paper product within the meaning of item 42 of Schedule I of the Act. So it becomes a finished product and when the appellant is realising the value of the paper and the printing charges, he is realising the sale price and he is becoming a dealer in this product also. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has taken the view that this is taxable at the general rate as finished goods. In these circumstances, we cannot see any reason to interfere with his findings."
6. The following questions of law have been raised for our consideration in these Tax Revision Cases.
"(i) Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in law in failing to advert to the individual contract entered into by the customers with the assessee?
(ii) Are there not two different and separate contracts, one for the supply of paper and the other for printing (work and labour) in each item of work done by the petitioner in the instant case. ?
(iii) Is the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the sale in the instant case is of a finished product, justified in law and based on any material?
(iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that when the petitioner was realising the value of the paper and the printing charges, he was realising the sale price and that he is a dealer in the finished product ?
7. The answers to the above questions would depend upon the nature of the contract. The Supreme Court in The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Guntur Tobaccos Ltd. (1965) 16 STC. 240 at page 255 states as follows:
"The fact that in the execution of a contract for work some materials are used and 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. A contract for work in the execution of which goods are used may take one of three forms. The contract may be for work to be done for remuneration and for supply of materials used in the execution of the works for a price; it may be a contract for work in whi
16 STC 240; 1970 KLT 454; 1966 KLT 1139; 1973 KLT 814; 9 STC 353
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.