STO PALGHAT Vs. I V SOMASUNDARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We propose to dispose of these Writ Appeals and the Original Petition by a common judgment because we conceive that notwithstanding the difference in the facts of these cases, Writ Appeals as a group, and the Original Petition as a separate matter, the question is of general application. The Writ Appeals are from the judgment of Isaac J. in I. V. Somasundaram v. Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle 11 Palghat repotted in (1972) 30 STC 260 and in 1972 KLT 495 . The Original Petition is before us on the basis of an order of reference by one of us in which this decision as well as the other decisions have been referred to.

(2.) Writ Appeal No. 205 of 1972 by the department and Writ Appeal No.206 of 1972 by the assessee are from the judgment disposing of Original Petition No. 3445 of 1970. The facts of this Original Petition are simple. The assessee, the petitioner in the Original Petition, according to him, was doing job works. The nature and detail of the works undertaken by the assessee are not clear. He claimed exemption for the entire turnover of Rs. 45,303.34, out of which a turnover of Rs. 8,501.91 was respecting judgments of courts printed by the assessee. The order of the Sales Tax Officer has been produced as Ext. P2 along with the Original Petition. The Sales Tax Officer had accepted the contention that what has been sold by the dealer are not paper products within the meaning of item 42 of Schedule I to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The Officer however did not grant exemption for any part of the turnover. He taxed the whole turnover at the general rate of 3%. This was the order that was impugned in O. P. No. 3445 of 1970. Isaac J. held that the judgments and other articles produced by the dealer are not paper products. The learned Judge also took the view that even in the case of printing of judgments where the printer supplied the paper, the. cost of the paper is liable to be charged under the Sales Tax Act as if there was a sale of the paper which was used for printing judgments. But the learned Judge also held that the cost of labour of printing judgments was not liable to be taxed. In this view, the order Ext. P2 produced along with the Original Petition was set aside and a direction was issued that the printing charges received by the petitioner be deducted from the total receipts to arrive at the taxable turnover. The officer was directed to reassess the petitioner in respect of the cost of the paper. The department has contended in Writ Appeal 205 of 1972 that even the cost of printing should not have been omitted in reckoning the taxable turnover whereas the assessee has contended that the whole of the amount of R.45,303.34 must be exempted.

(3.) In O. P. No. 5847 of 1970, the entire turnover relates to the supply of ration cards. The dealer had tendered for a contract for the supply of ration cards to the State and the tender was accepted. He has a large turnover and the question mooted was whether this turnover is liable to be taxed under the Sales Tax Act. This will again depend on the question as to whether there has been a sale of goods or not. If there has been a sale of goods the turnover relating to that sale will be taxable. If on the other hand, the payment made was for work and labour even if in the process of doing work and labour for which materials have been used or consumed, the turnover will not be taxed. This is the question to be determined in the case. Before we deal with this aspect, we may advert to one or two general aspects which may be eliminated so that attention can be concentrated on the real question.