TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (3) TMI 665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from June 26, 1986 will not come into play with reference to the assessment in question. Once the said provision of law is made inapplicable, the issue has to be decided on the basis of the pre-existing law with reference to the supply of letter pads, bill books, etc. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the T.N.G.S.T. Act and he supplied such letter pads, bill books, etc., according to the colour and textures required by the customers. The petitioner buys the raw materials like paper, ink, etc., from local registered dealers which have already suffered tax at the point of first sale within the State and therefore claim exemption on the supply of the printed materials. For the assessment year 1984-85, the petitioner reported a total....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave any commercial value in the market except for the customer who made the order. But according to the first respondent this issue is covered against the assessee by virtue of judgment in [1994] 95 STC 595 (AP. Electricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad). The first respondent then proceeds to overrule all the objections and fix the total and taxable turnover as Rs. 2,59,914. It is this order which is challenged before me in this O.P. 3.. No doubt the petitioner has a right of regular appeal under the Act. The question is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner should be driven to the necessity of filing an appeal. A careful perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impugned order ignores this aspect of the case. The first respondent had no business to go into the question whether the orders were given by the customers and whether the signatures were obtained from such customers. Equally the first respondent is in error in going into the question whether the paper was purchased from the customer and whether the assessee returned excess paper. In my opinion these issues are outside the scope of the proceedings after the decision of the apex Court reported in [1989] 73 STC 1 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Anandam Viswanathan). 6.. On the question whether the finished products on the basis of a particular order of a customer, having a commercial value or not, the first respondent has relied on the judgment in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is a market for these articles. The marketability of articles does not depend upon the number of purchasers nor is the market confined to the territorial limits of this country." 7.. I fail to see as to how this judgment helps the Revenue. Even assuming that the printed account books and letter heads have a commercial value and can be called marketable goods the question before the first respondent was whether there was a sale by the assessee to the customer in question and if so what goods were sold. It is with regard to that issue that the Supreme Court held in State of Tamil Nadu v. Anandam Viswanathan [1989] 73 STC 1 that having regard to the nature of the job done and the confidence reposed the supply of paper was just incidental. ....