LAWS(MAD)-2002-7-88

KANNAN ART CALENDERS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On July 18, 2002
KANNAN ART CALENDERS Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal under section 37 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short "the TNGST Act") challenges the order of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-III (SMR), dated October, 18, 1994, whereby the Joint Commissioner, under his suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 34 of the TNGST Act, had upset the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Virudhunagar, and restored the earlier order passed by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Sivakasi thereby, the turnover of Rs. 2,51,392 and Rs. 98,440 was restored and the tax thereon with a surcharge levy was ordered to be levied under the TNGST Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, (in short "the CST Act" ). THE following facts will highlight the controversy involved :

(2.) THE assessee, Tvl. Kannan Art Calenders, Sivakasi, was originally assessed under the CST Act for the year 1988-89 by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax-IV, Sivakasi, on a taxable turnover of Rs. 7,011. Subsequently, it was found that the sales of educational charts such as alphabet chart, number chart, etc. , were not assessed to tax. THE entire turnover of Rs. 98,440 was therefore treated by him as a sale of educational charts (printed materials) and was assessed to tax at 10 per cent.

(3.) AS against this, a decision was cited by the learned counsel appearing for the department in State of Tamil Nadu v. Papco Offset Printing Works [2000] 118 STC 160 (Mad.) wherein this Court held that what was exempted was the sales by the dealer of reading books which included text books. Therefore, if a dealer had simply printed certain material according to the specifications of some publisher, charging them with price with reference to the cost of paper, ink, etc. , and had never compiled any books for reading nor effected sale of such reading books such dealer would be outside the umbrella of exemption. In that case, it was held that such sales could not fall under item 22 of the Schedule to the notification.