Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.47 seconds)
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Uma Art Press on 24 March, 1984 cites

Assistant Sales Tax Officer And Ors vs B.C. Kame, Proprietor Kame Photo Studio on 14 December, 1976

27. Counsel for the opposite party then referred to the case of Assistant Sales Tax Officer v. B. C. Kame [1977] 39 STC 237 (SC). In this case it was held by the Supreme Court that when a photographer undertakes to take photographs, develop the negative, or do other photographic work and thereafter supplies the prints to his client, he cannot be said to enter into a contract for sale of goods. The contract on the contrary is for use of skill and labour by the photographer to bring about a desired result. Therefore, it must be held that the photographer undertook the contract of work and labour and did not enter into a sale transaction, and was not liable to sales tax. In my opinion this decision is also clearly distinguishable on facts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 47 - H R Khanna - Full Document

Sardar Printing Works vs Sales Tax Commissioner on 5 February, 1957

In Sardar Printing Works v. Sales Tax Commissioner [1958] 9 STC 75, the assessee who was a job printer sold stationeries to its customers. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that it issued separate cash and credit memos for papers and printing charges and this indicated the existence of two distinct contracts, one for the sale of paper and the other for printing. It was held by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that in the absence of evidence to prove that the customers in fact entered into the two transactions with the assessee, it was not open to him to assail the finding of the fact arrived at by the taxing authorities that the supply of paper and printing was but one transaction. It was further held that the stationeries sold by a printer to his customers are "goods" within the meaning of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950, and when a printer brings into existence printed stationery to the order of individual customer, he produces a commercial commodity which is capable of being sold or supplied. The printer in such a case is a manufacturer and when the printed material is sold to the customers, there is a sale of the finished goods to the customers. It was further held that it was not correct to say that the essential character of the work was the printing and not the supply of stationery and that in executing the printing work the paper came into existence and became the property of the client or customer only incidentally. It was pointed out that when a printer accepts orders from his customers for job-works, such as receipt books, registers, forms, letter heads, etc., and prints them in accordance with the requirements of his customers on paper supplied by the printer himself, the orders placed by the customers for such job-works are contracts for sale of goods and not contracts for work and labour.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Saraswati Printing Press vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Eastern ... on 30 July, 1958

In Saraswati Printing Press v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1959] 10 STC 286 a Division Bench of the Bombay . High Court held that where the petitioner-press itself purchased the stationery and did printing work upon it according to the orders of individual customers and supplied the printed stationery to the customers the petitioners produced a commercial commodity which was capable of being sold or supplied and when the petitioner sold the printed stationery to its customers, it sold goods to the customers upon which sales tax was leviable. It was further held that the transactions done by the petitioner-press were not in the nature of works contracts but were sales of goods.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Sri Krishna Power Press on 19 January, 1960

In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Krishna Power Press [1960] 11 STC 498 a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that where the assessee-press itself purchased stationery and did printing work upon it according to the orders of individual customers and supplied the printed stationery to the customers at an agreed price the transactions were sales liable to sales tax and not works contracts. The fact that the goods prepared by the assessee could not be exhibited for sale to the general public is not decisive of the matter : The only test is whether the contract is for the sale of finished products.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 9 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

S.R.P. Works And Ruby Press vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 June, 1971

In S.R.P. Works and Ruby Press v. State of A. P. [1972] 30 STC 195 a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court after referring to its earlier decision in the case of Krishna Power Press [1960] 11 STC 498 held that the petitioner, which was running a printing press, supplied cinema tickets printed on paper of different colours to the customers in pursuance of orders giving specifications having been placed in this behalf had done so in pursuance of a contract for purchase of tickets and not for the purchase of paper and that the property in the goods passed to the customers only when the finished goods, i.e., the tickets, were delivered to the customers and not before. It was pointed out that the fact that break-up figures were given in the bills was not decisive or conclusive in determining the question whether there were two contracts-one for supply of paper and the other for printing-or whether it was a works contract or merely an order placed for supply of finished goods.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Ousu Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 1973

17. The view taken by the Tribunal in the instant cases is apparently not in conformity with the law laid down in the aforesaid cases. In Shikshak Bandhu Karyalaya (printed at page 313 infra) 1980 UPTC 610 relied on by the Tribunal the question was whether printing and supplying of examination papers at fixed rates was a sale or works contract. It was held on the facts of that case the assessee was not taxable. That decision in my opinion is clearly distinguishable. It was a case of setting up of question papers, printing and supplying them to the schools who were inclined to order for the same. It was pointed out that the charges made by the assessees were not only for printing the papers but included various other item mentioned therein. It was not a case of supplying such printed materials as in the instant cases. The reasons recorded by the Kerala High Court in the case of Varghese [1976] 37 STC 171 in regard to question papers also distinguish the aforesaid case from the instant ones.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 123 - Full Document

Industrial And Commercial Service vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P. on 14 December, 1962

19. Reliance was also placed by the counsel for the opposite party on Industrial and Commercial Service v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (printed at page 314 infra) 1984 UPTC 104. In that case the assessee was a dealer in diaries and books, etc. It had supplied printed labels and diaries. In regard to the printed labels the Sales Tax Officer in the assessment order had observed that the cost of one thousand labels was Rs. 3.50 out of which the price of paper was 0.75 only. On the facts of that case it was held as far as the labels were concerned that the main ingredient of the price of the labels was the labour expended in the preparation of the labels by the assessee.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Law) ... vs Pio Food Packers on 9 May, 1980

24. In my opinion all these cases are clearly distinguishable. Simply because hydrogenated groundnut oil continued to be groundnut oil or sulphur rolls continued to be rock sulphur in a purified form or that pineapple fruit has been treated at par with its slices for a particular purpose cannot constitute a ground for holding that whatever may be the nature of the printed materials, the printed material shall continue to be paper. The view which I take finds support from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kanpur Journals Ltd. [1956] 7 STC 661, and from the decisions of various other High Courts already referred to above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 305 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1   2 3 Next