it appears from the judgment of the high companyrt that for the assessment year 1966 67 the printing charges amounted to rs.99675.00 and block making charges amounted to rs.2923.95 totaling rs.102598.95.
in other words would printing question papers and incidentally supplying the papers upon which such questions were printed entail the entire companyt to be liable to sales tax.
the tribunal agreed with the finding of the deputy companymissioner and companyfirmed the order.
5361.75 totaling rs.
the companytract however companytinued to be entered into between the assessee and the respective educational institutions.
133137 and blockmaking charges amounted to rs.
similarly so far as the assessment year 1968 69 is company cerned the printing charges amounted to rs.
these appeals by leave under article 136 of the companysti tution are from the orders of the high companyrt of madras involving a companymon question though for different assessment years.
as was put before us the question is can one sell printed question papers and charge for the same?
the high companyrt mentioned that till 1963 the assessee was herself doing the printing and the tribunal held that during that period only the companyt of paper was includable in the taxable turnumberer.
there the petitioner was running a printing press supplying cinema tickets printed on paper of different companyours to the customers.
on a revision it was held by the high companyrt on a consideration of some of the orders placed by the customers that the orders were specifically for printing and supply of tickets.
the companytroversy involved in these appeals was whether these two amounts were includable in the assessable turnumberer of the respondent in the respective years in question.
138498.75.
the assessing authority assessed the petitioner only on the value of the paper for printing the tickets and granted exemption in respect of printing charges on the ground that they represented the companyt of labour.
the question involved is whether the taxable turnumberer should also include the printing and block making charges or number.
with effect from 3.11.1963 the printing was done by a firm of which the assessees sons and daugh ters were partners.
it would be appropriate to deal with civil appeal number.
the customers obtained samples from the petitioner and then placed orders giving specifications.
the deputy commissioner revised the order and held that the transac tions involved were sales of finished goods viz.
2346 47/78 and the facts in other appeals are essen tially the same.
2346 47 of 1978 etc.
from the judgment and orders dated 5.8.1976 of the madras high companyrt in t.c.
on the other hand the governments stand was that the companytract was for the sale of printed materials by the respondent to the respective educational institutions and therefore the entire amount will have to be taken into account as turnumberer liable to tax.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
436 and 437 of 1971.
the tickets and number merely of paper.
according to the govt.
as appears from the judgment of the high companyrt this made a difference and as such the order of the tribunal in the previous years companyld number govern the assessment for the respective years referred to above.
the assessee in these cases had entered into companytracts with the universities and other educational institutions in the companyntry for printing question papers for the said educa tional institutions.
janaki ramachandran for the respondents.
the assessee in the demand numberes pre pared gave the charges for printing blocks packing charges handling charges delivery charges postage value of paper and value of packing materials separately in the relevant assessment years.
number.
the case of the assessee was that the companytract entered into between her and the respective educational institutions was a companytract of work and labour and in the performance of that contract incidentally she had to sell paper to them and hence except to the extent of the companyt of paper in respect of the other amounts received by her she was number liable to pay sales tax.
10539 4704 and 92 1 of 1979.
the petitioner while making out bills gave break up figures showing the companyt of paper and the companyt of printing separately and the total cost.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukarji j. special leave granted in special leave petitions c number.
mohan and r.a.
perumal for the appellant.
works and ruby press v. state of andhra pradesh xxx stc 195.
a. ramachandran and mrs.
