MODERN PRINTERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee is the revision petitioner. It is a printing press. According to the assessee, it is only engaged in the execution of job-works. Of course, the assessee purchases raw materials, such as, printing ink, paper, cards, etc. , for the execution of the said work. In the assessment for the year 1991-92, the assessee claimed exemption under the Notification S. R. O. No. 364/88. THE assessing authority rejected the said claim on the ground that the profit and loss account shows that the assessee had purchased raw materials, such as, printing ink, paper, cards, etc. , to the tune of Rs. 1,34,040-20 during the relevant year. It is also stated that the assessee had not produced any evidence to show that the said materials have been used for execution of job-works on contract basis. THE first appellate authority has also rejected the contention of the assessee based on the notification stating that the assessee has not produced any evidence either before the assessing authority or before the first appellate authority to prove that the material used for executing the works entrusted to the appellant by the customers have been supplied by them. THE appellate authority further observed that in order to claim the benefit of the Notification S. R. O. No. 364/88 the raw materials must be supplied by the customers or they must be purchased in the name of the customers. It was further observed that in the absence of any reliable and convincing piece of evidence, it cannot be said that the nature of work carried on by the assessee is only the execution of contract work. He accordingly held that the assessee is not entitled to exemption under the notification. THE Tribunal in further appeal by the assessee agreed with the order of the authority below. Hence the revision.

(2.) WE have heard Shri K. Janardhanan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Government pleader appearing for the respondent. The counsel for the revision petitioner mainly relies on the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kozhikode, in the case of the assessee for the year 1993-94 rendered on September 27, 1997 (annexure IV) and submits that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had allowed the claim made by the assessee based on the Notification S. R. O. No. 364/88. He further submits that there was absolutely no justification on the part of the authority and the Tribunal in declining to grant the relief under the said notification for this year. The counsel also submits that the petitioner had executed only job-works as per the orders of the customers which can be ascertained from the various documents maintained by the assessee. The learned Government pleader appearing for the respondent on the other hand submits that the assessee had not produced any material to show that the turnover represents contract works.