AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (1) TMI 519
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated August 7, 2003. In this impugned letter, the Deputy Commissioner and public relations officer of the Directorate of the Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, intimated that he was directed to inform that the decision as communicated earlier under office memo No. 63 CT/PRO dated March 1, 2000 stood withdrawn and in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Printing Press Fine Art Printer reported in [1999] 114 STC 242 the activity of printing client's specific computer papers and stationery by a dealer/person using his own goods like paper, ink, etc., is to be treated as works contract. The petitioner's pray for declaration that printing of computer papers and stationery as p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion on the ground that the petitioner did not disclose whether the petitioner No. 1 is registered and if the petitioner No. 2 is legally authorised to file the application. He contended that the impugned letter not being an order or action cannot be challenged the opinion expressed by the public relations officer is informal opinion and they are not issued under any power or rule made thereunder. this opinion is not binding on any statutory authority. He further contended that in spite of the provision of rule 2(mm) if the extent of manipulation is such that the finished product no longer remains stationery but emerges as printing material then there are certainly be a manufacturing process and the finished product is liable to tax. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egistered association authorised the petitioner No. 2 to file the application. The respondents is not prejudiced with the non-compliance of the provision of order I rule 8 sub-section 2 of CPC. The Tribunal may insist on compliance with the provisions of suing but when the proceeding is at the final stage and the respondents have not been prejudiced for non-compliance with the provisions of this rule, this application cannot be held not maintainable. The section 2(42) provides that works contract means any agreement for carrying out for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration inter alia improving, processing other than processing referred to clause (17), treating or adapting any goods. The clause (17) of section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Press Fine Art Printer reported in [1999] 114 STC 242. In the case Rainbow Color Lab v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2000] 118 STC 9, the appellants took photograph of the object desired by their customers, developed the negative and supplied the prints. They also developed the prints brought by the customers, made positive print thereof and supply the prints and returned the negative prints. In some cases the appellant might undertake enlargement of the photo prints. The question was whether the work done by the appellants amounted to "works contract" or fell within the definition of "sale " in section 2(n) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 after it was amended to include works contract read with article 366(29A)(b)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the works contract and (ii) supply of labour and service. This division of works contract under the amended law can be made only if the contract involved a dominant intention to transfer the property in goods and not in the contracts where the transfer of property takes place as an incident of a contract of service. The amendment has not empowered the State to indulge in microscopic division of contracts involving the value of materials used incidentally in such contracts of service. In the Sarvodaya Printing Press case [1999] 114 STC 242 (SC) relied on by the respondent the applicant press ran a printing press where only job work was done. It supplied printing materials to Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board in the form of multi-colour trip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....them from falling into the hands of third parties. The goods were not standard goods and were not capable of any use to anyone else and thus had no commercial value. Material could not be used even as scrap if rejected and had to be destroyed. Therefore, the supply of printed material to the MPEB by the applicant was not a sale but a works contract. In our case also the principal object was to get the matter printed by the contractor but not purchase of the printed materials. Unlike in the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, the "works contract" is not defined in the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and in the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. So, the decisions of the honourable Supreme Court as aforesaid, involving the Madhya Pradesh A....