True nature test governs taxability of printed-material contracts; classification depends on whether sale or works contract substance prevails.

Taxability of printed-material contracts depends on the true nature of the transaction, not merely on a schedule entry describing the goods. A printed article made to customer specifications is not automatically a works contract because it bears a name, logo, or other instructions; the decisive test is whether the contract is for transfer of goods as goods or whether property in goods is only incidental to work. The constitutional amendment on deemed sales does not permit taxation of a pure works contract as a sale by classification alone. The Government Order was upheld, but individual transactions remain subject to case-by-case examination of their contractual terms and surrounding facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Government Order amending the sales tax schedule to include printed materials manufactured to customer specifications was unconstitutional on the ground that it treated works contracts as sales, and whether liability to tax in such cases had still to be determined by the true nature of the contract.

Analysis: The levy depended not on the mere description of the goods in the schedule but on the real nature of the transaction. A printed article supplied to a customer is not automatically a works contract merely because it bears the customer's name, logo, or specifications. The decisive test is whether the contract is one for transfer of chattel as chattel or whether the transfer of property in goods is only incidental to the execution of work. The constitutional amendment enabling tax on deemed sales does not permit the State to tax a pure works contract as a sale by a schedule entry alone. Each transaction must therefore be examined on its own terms and conditions to decide whether it is a sale or a works contract.

Conclusion: The challenge to the constitutional validity of the Government Order failed. The Court held that the entry did not by itself convert every printed-material contract into a works contract or every works contract into a sale, and that the classification must be determined case by case.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were rejected and the impugned Government Order was upheld, while leaving the taxability of individual transactions to be determined on their contractual facts.

Ratio Decidendi: A schedule entry cannot, by itself, alter the essential character of a transaction; taxability turns on whether the dominant substance of the contract is a sale of goods or execution of work, to be determined from the terms and surrounding circumstances of each contract.

---