Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)

State Of Tamil Nadu vs Anandam Viswanathan on 24 January, 1989

"The judgment of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal is not before us, but we find the facts found stated in its order on the reference application. They are that the respondent ran a printing press at Nagpur wherein it carried on printing work for its customers. The respondent entered into an agreement with the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board for the supply of "revenue money receipt books" at the rate of Rs. 8.88 per receipt book. The judgment of the High Court shows that only job work was done in the respondent's printing press and that the charge for the supply of the receipt books was of composite nature. The judgment states that the paper and ink used were the property of the respondent before printing but thereafter they became the property of the Board; while the property in these methods passed to the Board, this was, in the very nature of things, only incidental or ancillary to the contract of printing. The High Court laid stress on this Court's judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Anandam Viswanathan (1973 STC 1) where the printing and supply of question papers to a University was involved. This Court held that though there was sale of paper and ink, it was merely incidental. It was not a case of sale but a works contract having regard to the nature of the job to be done. Following this judgment, the High Court held that there was no sale.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 84 - S Mukharji - Full Document

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

"15. Thus, it is clear that unless there is sale and purchase of goods, either in fact or deemed, and which sale is primarily intended and not incidental to the contract, the State cannot impose sales-tax on a works contract simpliciter in the guise of the expanded definition found in Article 366(29)(A)(b)) read with Section 2(n) of the State Act. On facts as we have noticed that the work done by the photographer which as held by this Court in Kame's case (AIR 1977 SC 1642) (supra), is only in the nature of a service contract not involving any sale of goods, we are of the opinion that the stand taken by the respondent State cannot be sustained."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 47 - H R Khanna - Full Document
1