I I See the observation in Court Press lob Bronch, Solem v. The Stste of Tomil Nadu, ond CST v. Rotno Fine Arts Printing Prcss

M/s.Srinivasa Litho Graphics, Red Hills, H erabad ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, Assistant Government Pleader representing Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, pecial Government Pleader Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. A.V.A. Siv Kartikeya The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE S;RI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURAT]LE SRI JUSTICE NARSIN(; R"TO NANDIKONDA TAX REVISION C ASE No.232 OF 2008 ORDER, Qer tton'hle Sri .lu.stitt l,.Sant ktsh.v) Heard Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran. leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader repre senting NIr. Si.r,aroop Oorilla, learned Speciat Govemment l)lcader. appearing lbr the petiticner and Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya. Iearned counsel for the respondent. l)crused the record.

2. The prcsent is a 'Iax Rer ision Case preferred by the State Govemment assailing rhc order. datecl 28.07.2008 passe.d in Tribunal Appeal No.352 ot 2008 by the Sales 1-ax Appellate Tribunal. Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (hercin:rlicr referred as, ,the 1'ribunal'), fbr the Assessment Ycar 2002-03.

3. The question ol lau, raised by. the petitioner by assailing the order of the Tribunal w,as whether the nature of work exccuted by the petitioner in the business ol printing to be treated as a q,or.ks contract or as an outright sale. 2

4. Upon pcrusal of the impugne order and thc findings given by the Tribunal, we find that the learne Tribunal has extensively dealt with the contentions raised by t e respondent assessec while challenging the ordcr passed by c revisional authority-Deputy Commissioncr (CT) Hydcrabad. It as been also reflected that the stand taken by the revenue was also xtensively delibcrated upon and discussed in the course of passing o the order and it has been hcld that the nature of work executed bv e respondents is infact works contract and not an outright sale. Th leamed I'ribunal had fortitled its view relying upon thc judgment o ' the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar lactual backdrop in the c of State of Tamil Nadu v Anandam Viswanathanl. wherein, e Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.l5 to 28 has held as u er: "25. The court has to find out the p and intentron of the parties. ln thrs c on the observatrons of this Court in (supra) at pages 323. mary object of the transaction nection, it is necessary to rely induston Aeronoutics Ltd case

26. The primary difference betwee and a contract for sale rs that in the performing or rendering service no p a whole, notwithstandinB that a p material used by him may have b finished product supplied to a commercial commodity in the sense market to any other person, the trans a contract for work or service former there is in the person perty rn the thing produced as rt or even the whole of the en his property. Where the rticular customer is not a that it cannot be sold in the ction is only a works contract. ' 1tsas1 r scc or: 3 I I See the observation in Court Press lob Bronch, Solem v. The Stste of Tomil Nadu, ond CST v. Rotno Fine Arts Printing Prcss.

27. ln ov opinion, in each case the nature of the contract and the transaction must be found out And this is possrble only when the intention of the parties is found out. The fact that in the execution of a contract for work some matenals are used and the property/goods so used, passes to the other party, the contractor undertakrng to do the work will not necessarily be deemed, on that account, to sell the materials. Whether or not and which part of the job work rc{ates to that depends as mentioned hereinbefore, on the nature of the transaction. A contract for work in the execution of which goods are used may take any one of the three forms as mentioned by th s Court in The Govetnment of Andhra Prodesh v. Guntur Toboccos lsuva).

28. ln our opinion, the contract in this case is one, having rcgard to the nature of the iob to be done and the confidence reposed, for work to be done for remuneration and supply of paper was just incidental. Hence, the entire price for the printed question papers would have been entitled to be excluded from the taxable turnover, but since in the instant case the deemed notes prepared by the assessee showed the cogts of paper separately, it appears that it has treated the supply of paper separately- Except the materials supplied on the basis of such contract, the contract will continue to be a contract for work and labour and no liability to sales tax would arise in respect thereof. The High Court was, therefore, right in the view it took in Civil Appeals Nos. 2346-2347 of 1978".

5. From the perusal of the alirresaid findings, we llnd that the objections and contentions raised by the petitioner herein also having been considered and decided by the Tribunal. Therefore. we do not find any substantial ground madc out by the petitioncr calling lor interference to the impugned or(ler. Another reason wh)'we do not find any force in the argumcnts ol the petitioner is that the Department itself had issued Form 'l-l' lor the ptrrpose ol computation of tax and Form '[. ] ' is one which .is issued to the 4 .- \ --.1 persons who carryout works contract This itself would establish the fact that the DePartment itselt at the first instance treated the respondent's naturc of work to be on lalling under works contract.

6. The'l'ax Revision Case. being evoid of merits. deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. l'herc sh ll be no order as to costs. Consequently, misccl laneous titions pending, if anY, shall stand closed ,[RUE C PYII SD'- K. SRINIVASA RAO OiNT REGTSTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, records, if any)

1. The Sales Tax APPellate Tribun , l;;;';d to Mr' swarooP oorilla' sPe i. 5',i" cc i" rut A V A Siva Kartikeva' 4. Two CD CoPies Andhra Pradesh' Hyderabad.(with I Government Pleader tOPUCI Advocate tOPUCI Kam/gh M I I I HIGH COURT DATED:01 10712025 \ Hf' S i A 16- s)\ 13 ttJB xE ( z d c J o o t Dr ai -4Irj\li ORDER TREVC.No.232 of 2008 THE TAX REVISION CASE !S REJECTED I b 1 ,,{ 3