TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 1161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for exemption was rejected by an order dated March 31, 1994 passed by the assessing officer. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the transaction was a works contract and hence remitted the matter back to the assessing officer, by an order dated January 20, 1998, with a direction to assess the transaction as works contract. The State filed a further appeal before the Additional Bench of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in MTSA No. 537 of 1999. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal along with three other appeals by a common order dated March 30, 2000. After four years of the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal, the State filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 3835 of 2004, but the same was also dismissed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be going into deterioration of their business. But, without these labels or cartons the bale commodity cannot enter into the field of public market. Nobody will touch it thinking that it is an inferior commodity. Only when it is wrapped with label or carton suitably made for it, the commercial value arises and it can enter the field of public market. In all the sale bills packing and forwarding charges are calculated separately. If not calculated separately, they fix the price inclusive of the packing materials. Thus, the label or carton (packing materials) is the deciding factor of fixation of price in the public market." Unable to agree with the above reasoning of the assessing officer, the appellate authority held that for deciding the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stoms [2001] 124 STC 59 (SC). (viii) Sardar Printing Works v. Sales Tax Commissioner [1958] 9 STC 75 (MP). (ix) Saraswati Printing Press v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur [1959] 10 STC 286 (Bom). (x) Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Haji Abdul Majid & Sons [1963] 14 STC 435 (All). (xi) P.T. Varghese v. State of Kerala [1976] 37 STC 171 (Ker). (xii) M.P. State Co-operative Press Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax [1988] 68 STC 245 (MP). (xiii) State of Tamil Nadu v. Papco Offset Printing Works [2000] 118 STC 160 (Mad). (xiv) Palakkad Dist. Co-op. Printing Press Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2004] 135 STC 207 (Ker). (xv) Nathan and Company v. Commercial Tax Officer, Trichy [W.P. (MD) No. 2607 of 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts with universities and educational institutions for printing question papers. A question arose whether the taxable turnover should include the printing and block-making charges or not. After considering an earlier decision in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Guntur Tobaccos Ltd. [1965] 16 STC 240 (SC), the Supreme Court reiterated that a contract for work in the execution of which goods are used, may take one of the three forms, viz., (i) the contract may be for work to be done for remuneration and for supply of materials used in the execution of the works for a price, (ii) it may be a contract for work in which the use of materials is ancillary or incidental to the execution of the work, or (iii) it may be a contract for work and use or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C 595 (SC), is also a case which arose under the Central Excise Act and the Supreme Court held therein that what is important is to find out if the goods are marketable or not, irrespective of whether they are, in fact, marketed or not. One cannot apply that analogy to the labels printed by the first respondent for a particular customer. To say that the labels printed and supplied by the assessee to a particular customer are saleable in the open market, is equivalent to saying that there are spurious goods available in the market under the very same brand name and that those indulging in the sale of spurious goods are making use of these labels. It is needless to say that there cannot be a presumption in law about unlawful activities. The a....