Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Ans. Yes.
The content and extent of "implied scope" of each question and answer needs to be critically analyzed. The key phrases in question No. 15, supra, are "supply of printed material" and. "as per prescribed specification". This clearly implies that when the said material is printed as per prescribed specification and the said material cannot be used by any person or entity other than the assesses because :
(a) The paper used for printing cannot be again utilized for printing of any other material.
(b) Printing had not been done at the instances of printer, but as per prescribed specification given by the principal.
(c) Printer cannot sell the same printed material to anyone else, if rejected or not accepted, as its use is specific to a particular user or entity only. This material has to be destroyed if not consequently accepted.

The plea of the assessee could be that the clarification issued by the Board is only regarding "printed material". It needs to be mentioned in this context, that any statute or explanation or proviso or clarification issued is only intended to be illustrative of the scope of the provisions and the intent of the law makers. If the Government was to clarify on each issue or each type of activity, which may be covered in a particular provision, then for each provision, a separate volume would be needed, which would make the entire process or the Act cumbersome, time consuming, etc. Consequently, while considering such matters, one has to see the scope, intent and thereafter, appreciate and. understand its legal implications and. application of law.

The fact, that the assessee is within the ambit of Section 194C is further strengthened by the decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has opined in BDA Ltd. v. ITO (supra) that supply of printed material as per specification supplied by the buyer is not a sale but a work contract. In this case, buyer who was dealing in the liquor placed orders for supply of labels as per specifications and printing as instructed was required to be done on. the labels, whose size, design, and other specifications were supplied by the buyer. It was held that the contract is a. works contract and not a contract for sale because the principal object of the buyer was to get the material printed as per the prescribed specifications and not to purchase printed material as available in the market and in case printing of labels if not done strictly in accordance with the specifications supplied by the buyer, neither that material could be used by the buyer nor the supplier of the label could use the same for any other purposes. Elaborating the reasons for the judgment the Tribunal held that the intention of the parties was most material. It held that such printed labels were not standard goods and were not capable of any use to anyone else and, thus, had no commercial value.

Where, however, the contractor undertakes to supply any article or thing fabricated according to the specifications given by Government or any other specified person and the property in such article or thing passes to the Government or such person only after such article or thing is delivered, the contract will be a contract for sale and as such outside the purview of this section.

11. We have considered the facts of the case. The AO mainly relied upon the decision in the case of BDA Ltd. v. ITO (supra), where it has been held that supply of printed material as per specification supplied by the buyer is not a sale but a work contract. The said decision has been decided against the Revenue by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court as pointed out by the counsel of the assessee. The AO has relied upon Circular No. 715, dt. 8th Aug., 1995, where the CBDT has given the answer in affirmative to the question whether Section 194C would apply in respect of supply of printed material as per prescribed provisions. The said circular is for printing contract. The counsel for the assessee has also pointed out Circular No. 681, Clause (vi.) Sub-clause (b) where it has been clarified by CBDT in view of judgment in case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra) that where however the contractor undertakes to supply any article or thing fabricated according to the specifications given by the Government or any other specified person and the property in such article or thing passes to the Government or such person only after such article or thing is delivered,, the contract will be a contract for sale and, as such, outside the purview of this section i.e., Section 194C of IT Act.