The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI.T. CHAITANYA KIRAN, ASST' G'P' REPRESENTIGN SRI SWAROOP OORILLA,SPECIAL GP FOR STATE TAX Counsel for the Respondent: SRI A K JAISWAL The Court made the following ORDER: i.rr.nr-q.+fGt THE HONOURABLII SRI JUSTICE P.SAM I., CISHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JT]STICN, SUDDALA CHA I 1,PA.THI RAO 'fAX REVISION CASE No.248 OF 2rXr9 ORDER, (per Hon'blc Sri Jusrtce P.Sum Koshy) tleard Sri 'l'.Chaitanya Kiran. learned Assistant (]o e rtntent Plcader representing Sri Swaroop Oorilla. learned Special Gover ''r lrt Pleader for State Tax, appearing ibr the pctitioner and Sri A.K.Jaiswr I :arned counsel appearing for lhe respondent. Pclused the record.

2. The instant'[ax I{evision Case has been filed as; iing thc order passed by the Sales'['ax Appellate Tribunal. Andhra Prat, ; . Flvderabad. in 'I .A.No.94l) of 2003 decided on 03.03.2009. 'l'he ,1 ri sLion of law involved raised by thc pctitioncr is whether the first ApJr, lirte Authority as also the Comniercial Tax Oflcer rvas .iustified in r.'i ching to the conclusion that thc supplying ol papcr by the respondont t,,lhc B.ll.lll- with their monograms printed on it rvould amount to salr r l' the printed paper or would it amount to works contl act.

3. A similar issue in l-he lecent past had conte-up lir onsideration belore this Bench in Tax Revision Case 233 of 2008 whicl : Lood decided against the Stale and in Iavor of the Assesscc vide order drLr,rt 01.07.2025. ln the said case, this Coun in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 Theld r s iurder: "4. Upon pcrusal of the impugned ordcr and thc findinl: r rr cn b1, the Tribunal, rve find that thc learned 'l'ribunal has exten:.r r r dealt with the cortentions raised by tlte respondent asser;: x while challenging the order passed by the revisional author i r Deputy Commissioncr (CT) Ilyderabad. It has been also refleclr:,I hat the 2 :',& ".,:' \ stand taken by the revenue was also cxtcnsivcly delibcrated upon and discussed in the course of passing of the order and it has been held that the nature of work executed by the respondents is in lact rvorks contract and not an outright sale. The lcamed Tribunal had fortified its view relying upon the judgnrent of the I{on'ble Supreme Court in similar factual backdrop in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Anandanr Viswanathanr, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraplr Nos.25 to 28 has held as urrdcr: "25. Ihe court has to find out the primary object of the transaction and intention of the parties. ln this connection, it is necessary to rely on the observations of this Court it Hinduston Aeronoutics ltd. case (supra) at pages 323.

26. The primary difference bctween a contract for work or service and a contract for sale is that in the former there is in the person performing or rendering service no property in the thing produced as a whole, notwithstanding that a part or even the whole of the material used by him may have been his property. Where the frnished product supplied to a particular customer is not a commercial commodity in the sense that it cannot be sold in the market to any other person, the transaction is only a works contract. See the obser-vation io Court Press lob Bronch, Solem v. The Stote of Tomil Nodu, ond CST v. Rotno Fine Arts Printing Press.

27. tn our opinion, in each case the nature of the contract and the transaction must be found out. And this is possible onlY when the intention of the parties is found out. The fact that in the execution of a contract for work some materials are used and the property/goods so used, passes to the other party, the contractor undertaking to do the work will not necessarily be deemed, on that account, to sell the materials. Whether or not and which parL of the job work relates to that depends as mentioned hereinbefore, on the nature of thc transaction. A contract for work in the execution of which goods are uscd may take any one of the three forms as mentioned by this court in The jovernment of Andhro Prodesh v. Guntur Ioboccos (supra).

28. ln our opinion, the contract in this case is one, having regard to the nature of thejob 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 questron 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 costs 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, riSht in the view it took in Civil Appeals Nos. 2346-2347 of 1978". ' (rgag) r scc or: 3

5. Fr :rt.t the perusal of the aforesaid findings, we llrrlthat the objectiolrs and cortentions raised b}, the petitioner hereir a scr having bccn cortsidered and decided by tho'fribunal, Thercfox ve do not find anJ' substantial ground made out by the petitiont:r ,alling tbr intcrference to the irnpugned order."

1. As discussed in paragraph No.4, the decision o his (lourt was predominantly on the judgment of the Ilon'ble Supreme 'i iufl in thc case of State of lamil Nadu v. Anandam Viswanathan:r ln vieq, of the aforesaid judgment of this High Court as also that ol'the Ilc n'blc Supreme Court in the case of Anandam Viswanathan, we arc . he corrsidered opinion that thc prescrlt case raised bl, the Statc alsc, s ands squarclv covered by the said decision.

5. 'l'he Tlx Revision case, accordingll, fails and is tt rctccl alfirming the order passed by the Sales 'l'ax Appcllate Tribunal. -[ u rc shall be no order as to costs. Conseeluently, rniscellancous pctit.ions pendillg, il .r rr,. shall stancl closed. :-f11tr) 1 sL(Gl3 Sd/. M RAMANA KRISHNA .JOINT REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal' Nampally' Hyderabtrd One CC to SRl. SWAROOP OORILLA, Special G P t r State Tax' Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad' High One CC to SRl. A. K. JAISWAL, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies kut/PSL w ) .\- -a ..\ '';. i'. 10 t, I 2025 \.. ^,' -* s!r:;, ,)/ HIGH COURT DATED:21l08/2025 ORDER TREVC.No.248 of 2009 REJECTING THE TREVC WITHOUT COSTS -G*Y &