Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. In the instant case the authorities have, on the basis of the materials produced before them, come to the conclusion that the orders placed by the customers were for the sale of printed materials in the form of bill books, vouchers receipt books, letter-heads, question papers and notices. The assessees clients had not intended to buy and he had not intended to sell mere paper. What he intended case, at page 256 the Supreme Court extracts the following passage from its judgment in Gannon Dunkerleys case (9 S.T.C. 353) -

10. The question really is whether in the instant case the contract was for the sale of paper as well as for work and labour or whether it was a contract for printed materials as such or whether it was a contract for work and labour. If it was a contract for the sale of paper and for work it would be a composite contract where it might be possible to separate the sale from the work. If, on the other hand it was a contract for printed materials, as found by the Tribunal, what was sold was not paper, but printed materials. If the contract was for work and labour, in which the use of materials was merely accessory or incidental, as, for example, in the case of printing judgments, it would be a works contract which would not involve any sale, and the charges would not be assessable to tax under the Sales Tax Act.

(Gannon Dunkerly, Supra) Only in respect of these goods to which title has passed as a result of contract, can it be said that the goods have been sold. Where a person buys a picasso or a Ravi Varma, he does not intend to buy or pay for the canvas or the paint, although canvas and paint are involved in the production of the painting, and title to such materials is transferred to him. But such transfer of title to the materials is not pursuant to any agreement or sale of the materials as such. It would never have been in his mind to pay separately for the materials and for the labour. What the buyer buys is a finished product which is a work of art. On the other hand, when a person gets his manuscript printed as an article or a book of verses, the printer does no more than a mechanical or technical job. The printer does not create the article or the poem, but merely renders his services to print which is in the nature of a job work. The manuscript as such is the result of the skill, industry and scholarship of the author. In such a case, there is no sale of the article or book by the printer; not it be possible in such a case to spell out an agreement for the sale of materials such as paper or ink, which may have been incidentally used in the production of the printed work. While the painter sells a finished product which is a work of art quite distinct and different from the materials used in its production, the printer merely does a job work involving no sale; one is the work of an artist who is endowed with the finer qualities of imagination and taste the other that of an artisan who is trained as a mechanic or technician. A printer of judgments, for example, does not produce and sell them, his work is purely that of a technician. This Court has therefore held that printing of judgments is only a works contract. The work of a printer in certain cases may involve more than printing; he may be a producer of finished articles such as bill books, vouchers and the like. When such articles are printed and sold to the customers, what is not paper or paper products but printed materials which are finished products. Such contracts cannot be regarded as contracts for the sale of paper coupled with an agreement to render service. The sale of paper had never been the subject-matter of the agreement between the parties. Like in the case of painting which is a finished product being a work of art, the bill books and vouchers are new products being printed materials; and the sale of such goods does not involve a composite contract which can be bifurcated into an agreement for the sale of goods - be they canvas and paint or paper and an agreement for work.

15. In the light of the above decisions, we are of opinion that the printed materials such as bill books or vouchers are not paper, but finished products other than paper products, and as such are liable to be taxed. In the case of question papers as in the case of judgments, a distinct has to be drawn. The printings of question papers, in our opinion, are a contract for work and labour, for the questions as such have been prepared by persons of special learning and skill, and printer merely puts them in print which involves work and labour. The use of materials such a paper and ink in such cases is only accessory or incidental. He does not produce and sell question papers or judgments (unlike in the case of bill books or vouchers); he merely prints what is prepared by others, as in the case of an article or a poem.