STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. EVEREST COPIERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE substantial question of law involved for determination in this case is as to whether the taking of photostat copies with the use of xerox machine and delivering the copies so taken to the customers on receipt of certain charges will amount to sale of goods exigible to tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

(2.) THE Revenue has filed the above revision against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, dated July 20, 1982, made in C.T.A. No. 714 of 1981 whereunder the Tribunal held that there is no element of sale involved in the transaction and that the charges received by the assessee for taking and supplying xerox copies of the document would amount to cost of labour and skill, without which the xerox machine cannot work perfectly and smoothly. THE respondent-assessee reported a total turnover of Rs. 77, 659 for the assessment year 1979-80 and claimed exemption from tax on the entire turnover thereby reporting the taxable turnover to be "nil" in the form A1 return filed by them. Before the assessing authority, the assessee claimed deduction of the entire turnover as labour charges received. On the other hand, the assessing authority was of the view that the assessee sold copies of documents taken in "xerox" photostat copies and consequently, the transaction should be considered to be sale of copies of the documents produced by them and subject to tax at 4 per cent.

(3.) THE Revenue contends before us that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that there was no element of sale in the transaction and that the charges received ny the assessee from the customer would represent the cost of labour and skill only. According to the Revenue, the Tribunal ought to have held that the transaction involves delivery of copies made by using the xerox machine for valid consideration and that it satisfies the requirement of sale rendering the entire turnover exigible to tax. It is also contended before us that the Tribunal has not properly considered and applied the relevant case law on the subject and the ratio of the decision reported in Assistant Sales Tax Officer v. B. C. Kame 1977 AIR(SC) 1642, 1977 (2) SCR 435, 1977 (1) SCC 634, 1977 (39) STC 237, 1977 (6) CTR 67 of the Apex Court would have no application to the case on hand.