TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (10) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be taxed. The assessee claimed before the assessing authority that the orders placed by the customers consisted of two parts, one being for the supply of the required paper and boards and the other being for the printing of the ledgers and account books. As far as the first part was concerned, the assessee agreed that there were sales of goods but contended that those sales being second sales, were exempt from assessment. As far as the second part was concerned, the assessee's claim was that they were works contracts. The assessing authority held that the orders placed by the customers related only to the finished goods and did not consist of separate contracts for the supply of materials and for work. The turnover was, therefore, consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authorities below had held that the order was in respect of the finished articles only and that therefore, the entire transaction was in the nature of sales exigible to tax. It may be relevant, however, to consider the other details mentioned in the order form in order to determine the real nature of the transaction. The order form itself provides separate columns for the cost of materials, if supplied by the press, and for labour charges. The invoices have also been maintained separately by the assessees for the cost of material wherever they had been supplied by the press and for the labour charges. The conditions stipulated in the order form, however, clearly show the true nature of the transactions contemplated by the parties. Clause 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice and the other for sale and purchase of materials to be used in the course of executing the work. The Tribunal has, in these circumstances, held that the transactions could not be said to be one and indivisible, for, the parties had deliberately provided for two distinct and separate contracts. The Tribunal has also examined the question as to whether the separation in the manner done could be taken to be a makebelieve affairs for the purpose of sales tax and answered it in the negative. We, thus, start with the finding that the transactions, as envisaged by the parties, fall into two parts and that the transactions have been properly and genuinely recorded in the books. It is in the light of this finding that we have to exa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere destroyed or spoilt, the loss would fall on the body builder. In that particular case, the Supreme Court had also pointed out that the chassis themselves had been insured. Supposing any damage resulted to the chassis, then the person who provided the chassis would be entitled to reimbursement from the insurance company. It is only in the case of the body, that the question as to what would happen if the body before its construction and delivery was destroyed, was posed and answered. Until and unless the entire body was constructed and delivered, there would have been no sale on the facts of that particular case. But, that is not necessarily the position in every other case that arises in this branch of law. The nature of the transaction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... P.M. Venkatachalam Pillai v. State of Madras [1969] 23 STC 72. That was also a case of a printer and the question was whether the turnover consisted of the aggregation of labour charges and the cost of materials in printing work or of outright sales of finished commodities. The assessee relied on certain bills which showed the cost of materials and labour charges, but he did not produce the order books or other documents. In those circumstances, the Tribunal found that the separate entries were only a "make-believe" apportionment for the purpose of sales tax and that what was sold was only a finished product. It is this finding of the Tribunal which was affirmed by this Court. It could be seen that the case turned upon the non-production o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Somasundaran [1974] 33 STC 68. That was a case where the printer printed letter heads, invitation cards, judgments of courts and ration cards. In the case of printing of judgments of courts and ration cards, the court took the view that they were only works contracts. But, in the case of printing of letter heads and invitation cards, the view taken was that they were in the nature of sale of goods. It is difficult for us to find out why two sets of transactions were differentiated. It is clear, on a perusal of the said decision, that the question turned on the particular facts in respect of each of the items of work undertaken. If we may say so the test to be applied is very succinctly brought out in State of Orissa v. Ramanath Panda [....