1970 (2) TMI 118 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Tax liability on printed materials sold with separate charges for paper, printing, and binding.
2. Interpretation of separate charges for paper, printing, and binding in sales bills.
3. Determining tax liability when the contract is for the sale of finished printed articles.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the tax liability on printed materials sold by a dealer, with separate charges for paper, printing, and binding. The Tribunal held that only the cost of paper should be taxed, excluding the cost of printing. The State of Orissa challenged this decision on the grounds that the printed materials were liable to tax. The key issue was whether the printed materials, where paper was not supplied, were subject to tax.

2. The Court examined the nature of the agreements between the parties in such transactions. It differentiated between cases where the purchaser supplied paper for printing and cases where the seller provided printed materials. The Court emphasized that if the agreement was for the purchase of printed materials, the entire amount, including the cost of printing, would be subject to sales tax. The Court clarified that separate charges for paper and printing in the bills do not change the nature of the agreement if the ultimate sale was for printed materials.

3. The Court analyzed the factual findings of the authorities, which confirmed that the agreement was for the supply of printed materials. Even though the dealer charged separately for paper and printing in the bills, the essential character of the agreement was for the sale of printed materials. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in segregating the cost of printing from the total value and ruled that the printed materials were indeed liable to sales tax. Therefore, the Court answered all three questions in the negative, confirming the tax liability on the printed materials sold by the dealer.

Judgment:
The High Court of Orissa held that the printed materials sold by the dealer, even with separate charges for paper and printing, were subject to sales tax. The Court emphasized that the nature of the agreement, which was for the supply of printed materials, determined the tax liability. The Court rejected the Tribunal's view of taxing only the cost of paper and ruled in favor of taxing the entire value of the printed materials. The references were accepted, and the Court ordered a hearing fee of Rs. 50.