BALASUBRAHMANYAN, J.

In this tax revision arising under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the question is whether the assessee sold printing paper and then got it back from the customers for the purpose of carrying out printing work on such paper. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the contracts between the assessee and his customers are indivisible contracts under which then assessee undertook to deliver printed material in accordance with the customers' instructions. The Tribunal therefore considered the receipts in the assessee's business as representing turnover in sales of goods taxable under the Act. For the same reason, they rejected the contention of the assessee that the turnover only represents receipts from works contracts.

The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the order forms, on the basis of which the transactions took place as between the customers and the assessee clearly distinguish between the two transactions, one, the supply of paper by the assessee to the customers at a price, and the other, the cost of the printing, the two being set out in separate columns in the order forms. The learned counsel drew our attention to some writings on the reverse of the order forms which, according to the learned counsel, showed that what the assessee did was only to execute a job work on paper belonging to the customers. These writings were described as "conditions". Paragraph 4 of the conditions is as follows :

"In case the press agrees to supply materials, to be used in the execution of the work, such materials shall be deemed to be the property of the customer placing the order from the date of such supply, and in case of loss, or damage to such material during the course of the execution, such loss shall be borne by the customer." *

The Tribunal has not adverted to this condition appended to the order forms, apparently because it was not particularly brought to their notice. It however seems to us that this condition is only in the nature of a self-serving statement. Even otherwise, we do not see how it lies in the power of some one who is not a legislative authority to introduce a mere fiction and treat something which does not exist as something which must be "deemed" to exist. There is yet another tell-tale element in the order forms. If really the paper belongs to the customer concerned at the time when he places the order with the assessee for printing and the order form truly reflects that position, viz., the ownership of the printing paper as that of the customer, then there is no reason why the cost of paper should also find a place in the columnwar particulars provided for in the order forms. If the one and only contract between the customer and the assessee is that the assessee should get some printing done on the paper provided by the customer, the assessee would not be bothered about the quality or cost of the paper, so long as printing work can be done on it. There is no particular reason why in an order form, which is supposed to request the assessee to execute a printing job, special mention should be made of the cost of paper. The column provided for this particular really lets the cat out of the bag, which is that the cost of paper really represents the price of paper which is included in the material ultimately passing from the assessee to the customer.

The Tribunal, which had gone into these and other aspects of the order forms, had recorded a clear finding to the effect that the order form is make-believe and does not reflect the real nature of the transaction between the assessee and his customers. Given the finding by the Tribunal that the printed conditions in the order forms are not to be accepted at face value, and that the transactions between the assessee and his customers involve only the supply of printed material at a price, we have to uphold the decision of the Tribunal that the entire receipts in the assessee's business must be held to be sales turn