Photocopying as a work contract, not a sale, where materials are incidental and service remains the dominant object.

Photocopying transactions for consideration were held to be contracts of work or service, not sales of goods, because the dominant object was duplication of the customer's document and the use of paper and ink was merely incidental. Property in the copied sheet passing during performance did not convert the arrangement into a sale of chattel as chattel. Applying the distinction between a sale and a works contract, the transaction fell outside the sales tax charging provision and sales tax was not exigible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the making and delivery of photocopied or xeroxed copies for consideration amounted to a sale of goods liable to sales tax, or a contract of work and service outside the charging provision.

Analysis: The governing test was whether the main object of the transaction was transfer of property in goods as goods, or the rendering of work or service. The use of paper and ink in the photocopying process was only incidental to the real object of the customer, namely, duplication of the document. The customer paid for the service of making copies and had no independent interest in the blank paper apart from the copied matter. Applying the distinction drawn in earlier decisions on work contracts and contracts of sale, the transaction did not answer the description of a sale merely because property in the copied paper passed to the customer in the course of performance.

Conclusion: The photocopying transaction was a contract of work or service and not a sale of goods; sales tax was not exigible.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the dominant object of a transaction is duplication or rendering of service and the materials used are merely incidental, the transaction is one of work and labour and not a sale of chattel as chattel.

---