( 1. ) THE petitioner is a co-operative press and, according to it, provides service of printing and supply of printed material to cooperative societies. A perusal of the record before the taxing authorities under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") indicates that various articles which the petitioner prints and supplies to the co-operative societies fall under the following categories:

(1) Cheque books for several co-operative banks. (2) Printed registers to be maintained by banks and co-operative societies. (3) Letter pads on the orders of the customers. (4) Bonds of securities, captioned in Hindi Rin Patra. (5) Various types of forms to be used by co-operative societies and banks. (6) Share certificates for co-operative societies captioned in Hindi Ansh Praman Patra. (7) Ration cards. (8) Annual audit reports and financial statements in book form to be circulated to the members.

It further appears from the said record that at one point of time it also printed a pamphlet entitled "jabalpur Zila Me Nalkoop Yojni". It was published at the instance of Zila Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti, Jabalpur, and appears to have been meant for being distributed particularly among agriculturists to persuade them to derive benefit of the scheme with regard to irrigation. In proceedings for assessment of sales tax for eight periods between 13th November, 1966 and 12th January, 1981, the case of the petitioner was that it did not carry on the business of sale of goods but was executing works contract. This plea, however, did not find favour with the Additional Sales Tax Officer and orders of assessment were passed against the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred revisions before the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax which were dismissed by a common order dated 4th January, 1983. It is these orders passed by the Additional Sales Tax Officer and on revision by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

( 2. ) IT has been urged by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner had only carried out job-work in printing various items referred to above on the specifications provided by the customers, the view taken in the impugned orders that it was a case of sale of goods and not of works contract suffers from a manifest error of law. In order to appreciate this submission, it is necessary to consider certain decisions laying down the principles for determining the distinction between a transaction falling under the category of sale of goods from one of works contract. In Kanpur Journals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. [1956] 7 STC 661, it was held by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court:

We think it now to be established that in order to determine the nature of a contract the court has to look at its substance. If the substance of the contract is the production of something to be sold to the customer--such as a suit of clothes--then that is a sale of goods. If, on the other hand, the substance of the contract is that skill and labour have to be exercised for the production of the article, and that it is only ancillary to that that there will pass to the customer some materials in addition to the skill involved--as in the case of an oil painting--the contract will be one of work. This was so laid down in Robinson v. Graves [1935] 1 KB 579 where the earlier cases including Clay v. Yates 25 LJ Ex 237 relied upon by the assessees were considered. Applying this test, and assuming that there be only a single contract, we can entertain no doubt that they were contracts of sale.

In Sardar Printing Works v. Sales Tax Commissioner [1958] 9 STC 75, it was held by a Division Bench of the Court that stationery sold by the assessee to the customers is goods and that when the assessee brings into existence printed stationery to the order of individual customer, he produces a commercial commodity which is capable