Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

30. In Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Tvl.R.M.D.C.Press Private Limited, reported in (1999) 112 STC 307, wherein, it had been held as follows:-

“It is difficult that in the execution of job work of printing, there is any transfer of property in the ink which is used for the purpose of printing. In fact, ink is a tool of the printer. It is consumed in the process of printing and looses its identify as “Goods”. No property can be said to pass in ink in the execution of the contract of printing, either as ink or in http://www.judis.nic.in any other form. No customer is concerned with the ink used in printing, its quantity or cost. It cannot be said that when a customer gets ink either as ink or in any other form, there is thus no transfer of ink involved in the execution of works contract of printing. It may be pertinent to observe that what is taxable under the Act is the value of the goods which gets transferred to the customer in the execution of works contract either as goods or in any other form and not the value of goods used or consumed in the execution of the works contract. If such user of consumption does not result in transfer of property in those goods in any form to the customer. That being so, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that there is no transfer of property in ink involved in the execution of contract of printing either as ink or in any other form.” B3) The law again reiterated:-

31. The judgment of the Division Bench in Tvl.R.M.D.C.Press Private Limited, (referred supra), came up for consideration in (2003) 5 MHCJ 455, Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Matushree Textiles Ltd, and the Division Bench held as follows:-

“The ratio laid down by this Court in the case of R.M.D.C. Press Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 112 STC 307 has no precedential value in view of the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Sarvodaya Printing Press [1999] 114 STC 242 and the Constitution Bench (three-Judge Bench) decision in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. [2001] 124 http://www.judis.nic.in STC 59. In the case of R.M.D.C. Press [1999] 112 STC 307, this Court took the view that the ink is a tool of the printer and the same is consumed in the process of printing and looses its identity as goods and, therefore, no property can be said to pass in ink used in the execution of the contract of printing. This finding is contrary to the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sarvodaya Printing Press v. State of Maharashtra reported in [1994] 93 STC 387, wherein it is held that the paper and ink used in printing passes to the customer after printing and become the property of the customer by theory of accretion. The Full Bench decision of this Court has been upheld by the apex Court which is reported in State of Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Printing Press Fine Art Printer [1999] 114 STC 242. Therefore, the decision in R.M.D.C. Press case [1999] 112 STC 307 rendered by the division Bench without considering the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sarvodaya Printing Press [1994] 93 STC 387, (which was binding on the Division Bench), must be held to be per incuriam. Once it is held that the property in goods used in the execution of the works contract passes incidentally or by theory of accretion, such passing, though not a sale under BST Act, would be deemed sale under the Works Contracts Act. In the present case, as the property of the materials used in the process of dyeing and printing are passed on to the customer in the form of coloured shade and such passing amounts to sale, the provisions of the Works Contracts Act are attracted.” (Emphasis supplied) http://www.judis.nic.in

39. In LNIND 2010 MAD 468, M.S.Mohan Offset Printers Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Deputy Commissioner CT, a Division Bench of this Court had examined the case of the assessee, who prints and supplies the materials as per specification, design and general layout of the customers with their name and address predominantly printed. The Division Bench examined the core question involved as to whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, printing ink could be construed to be a consumable one or not and whether such printing ink when used for execution of works contract to printing materials would amount to transfer of property in goods in terms of Sections 2(j) and 2(u) of the TNGST Act and consequently as to whether Section 3-B was attracted.

40. In paragraphs 15, 16 and 18 the Division Bench observed as follows:-

http://www.judis.nic.in “15. The learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee has contended that when once the printing ink is used in the execution of works contract, it would lose the character as a 'good' and thereafter cannot be called within the definition of 'goods' under Section 2(j) of the TNGST Act. In our opinion, the said submission cannot be accepted. The undisputed facts are that the assessee accepts the job of works contract for supply of printed materials like carton, labels and the customers supply only papers. The assessee engages coolies for the printing works. By the above act of the assessee, the job of works contract is not completed unless the actual printing is undertaken. For the purpose of printing, the printing ink must be used. It is also not in dispute that the customers are not supplying printing ink and the assessee is also not buying the printing ink making the same liable for tax. The assessee buys the raw materials like pigments, linseed oil and chemicals and manufactures the printing ink. These raw materials are purchased under 'C' forms. By using all these raw materials, a new product, namely, printing ink emerges and that new product had not suffered any tax. Only when this printing ink is used on the material papers supplied by the customers and the actual printing is undertaken, the works contract is completed.