Identical prior appellate findings and customer-supplied printing work defeated revision and confirmed a works contract treatment.

Revision on identical transactions was unsustainable where an earlier appellate order had already accepted the assessee's case for prior years. The court treated that prior determination as binding on the revenue and quashed the revision notice. It also held that printing bill books, forms and registers on paper supplied by customers constituted a works contract, not a taxable sale, following prior Division Bench authority and the governing Supreme Court principle. The writ petition succeeded and the impugned notice was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision notice could be sustained when the earlier appellate order on identical transactions had already accepted the assessee's case. (ii) Whether the supply of printed materials prepared on the customer's paper amounted to a works contract and not a sale.

Issue (i): Whether the revision notice could be sustained when the earlier appellate order on identical transactions had already accepted the assessee's case.

Analysis: The revision was sought on the premise that the assessee could not rely on the appellate order passed for the earlier assessment years. The transaction for the year in question was found to be identical to the earlier years, and the appellate authority had already set aside the assessment for those years in the assessee's favour. On that basis, the earlier appellate determination was treated as binding on the revenue, and the proposed revision was held to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The revision notice was not maintainable and was liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the supply of printed materials prepared on the customer's paper amounted to a works contract and not a sale.

Analysis: The transaction involved printing bill books, forms and registers on paper supplied by the customers. The Court relied on the earlier Division Bench decisions which, applying the governing Supreme Court authority, had held that such supply of printed material on customer-owned paper did not attract sales tax and was to be treated as a works contract.

Conclusion: The transaction was a works contract and not a taxable sale.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned notice was set aside, and the connected miscellaneous petition stood closed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the transaction is identical to one already accepted in an earlier appellate order and the printing work is done on paper supplied by the customer, the revenue cannot sustain a revision treating the activity as a sale.

---