Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

13. This Court held in Srinivasa Printing Works vs. Sales Tax Officer (1966 K.L.T. 1139) as follows :-

"Applying the above principle it is clear that the contract in the cases of printing of letter heads, binding of books and supply of journal forms are contracts for sale. But it seems to me impossible to say that the contract for printing judgments of court is a contract for sale. It appears to me that this is a contract for work and labour."

This principles was restated by this Court in Sales Tax Officer, Palghat vs. I. V. Somasundaran (1973) K.L.T. 814). This Court stated as follows :-

"The question must first be what essentially is the nature of the contract. For instance, if there is an agreement for printing judgment essentially the contract is one for work and labour and if the contract is essentially for work and labour, there is no justification for bifurcating non-existent, one for cost of labour and the other for sale of paper. There are many activities which cannot be indulged in without material. It may be canvas in the matter of a painter and the paint that he uses, an example which will glaringly illustrate the mistake of applying the theory that in every such agreement, there is an agreement for the sale of the material used and an agreement for work and labour. If a painter has been commissioned to paint a portrait, he uses his own canvas and his own an agreement for the sale of the canvas and for the paint and separate charges for work and labour for painting would be stretching a point too far, resulting in artificially, not to say, unreality. In the case of a good painting canvas is insignificant, but canvas must be there, because nobody can paint without a wall but it is only incidental, an insignificant part of the contract which must be ignored the essentiality of which is the work of good painting. As we said, this is a patent example and as we proceed along the line and come to the judgments, the line of demarcation becomes thinner and when we come to ration cards, letter-heads and invitations,, the line is obliterated and it may not be possible to say that it is essentially a contract for work and labour. In such cases, if it is not possible to spell out two different contracts the only view that can be taken is it is an agreement for sale".

(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.