9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (4) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sters. They were also to prepare the designs for the printing according to the instructions of their customers and had to get the printing work done on the posters, which they got executed by other printing presses after paying the charges for the work done. The petitioners issued to the customers separate bills in respect of each of their orders for posters: one for the sale of the paper required for the posters and the other for charges for work, labour and skill. In the relevant assessment period in the present case, the petitioners had collected from their customers, apart from the price of the paper supplied, a total amount of Rs. 34,126-15-0 for work and labour charges which also included charges for their skill. At the time of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers had not passed to the customers before the printing was done on the paper. He pointed out that no stock book was maintained by the petitioners and although it was stated on behalf of the petitioners that paper was supplied to the printers under delivery chalans no such chalans had been produced by them. In the view of the Additional Collector, therefore, it was not conclusively proved by the petitioners that they had first supplied the paper to the customers and that thereafter they had undertaken to get the designs printed thereon and they, therefore, were not entitled to have the amount of Rs. 34,126-15-0 excluded from the turnover. The petitioners then took the matter before the Sales Tax Tribunal in a revision. The view of the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the Tribunal and the bills which he had supplied to the customers as also the accounts which he had maintained in connection with the transactions clearly substantiated his case. The Sales Tax Authorities and the Tribunal have ignored this evidence, which is clearly in favour of the petitioners without assigning any good or proper reasons. The Tribunal, he points out, is in error when it says that the petitioners had not produced any material to show that there were initially separate contracts for the supply of paper and for the printing thereof when there was, as a matter of fact, prima facie evidence produced by them. The Tribunal in its judgment has not dealt with this evidence nor given any reasons for its ignoring the same. Accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng disturbed. If, however, in arriving at the said conclusion, there was an error of law involved, it would not be a binding finding of facts. In out opinion, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is the result of its having misconceived the correct position in law. It has not held as contended by the learned Advocate-General that the contract in the present case is one and indivisible for the supply of ready-made posters. What it has held is that the petitioners have failed to prove that there were initially two separate contracts one for the supply of papers and the other for work and labour. It appears to us that the view taken by the Tribunal is that in order that the petitioners may be entitled to claim exemption in respect of the pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firmatory letters. That is why we do not find in the judgment of the Tribunal any discussion of the said evidence or its conclusion as to the legal effect thereof. The learned Advocate-General has pointed out that although the decision of the Tribunal does not contain a discussion of this evidence and does not state the reasons for its rejection the decision of the Additional Collector would indicate that he has dealt with the said evidence and has also given reasons for its rejection. And since the Tribunal was not disagreeing with the view taken by the Additional Collector with regard to the said evidence, the Tribunal might not have dealt with it exhaustively. Now so far as the judgment of the Additional Collector is concerned, the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Collector, therefore, do not appear to us to be good and substantial reasons for rejecting the Prima facie evidence produced by the petitioners in support of their case. As we have already pointed out, this evidence has not been considered by the Tribunal in its judgment. In our opinion, therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, there appears to be no reason why the case which was made out by the petitioners before the Sales Tax Authorities cannot be taken to have been established. In the view that we are taking of the matter, question No. 1 will be answered in the negative. Our answer to question No. 2 will be that the supply of paper and the contract of printing constituted two separate contract transactions. Our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
