MUDRAN MAHAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a publisher and is engaged in the printing and sale of books prescribed by the State Government for Class I to VIII. An agreement has been executed between the State Government and the petitioner for publication, supply and sale of books. The agreement indicates that the State Government is the owner of the books and that the petitioner would be responsible for publishing and selling the books on which the petitioner would pay a royalty to the State Government. The agreement further indicates that if the books are sold to the State Government or to its departments, the petitioner would sell them at a discounted rate. Based on this agreement, the petitioner has received various purchase orders from various District Basic Siksha Adhikari and, in pursuance thereto, has been supplying the books and have received the price of the books from these authorities.

(2.) FOR the purpose of selling the books, the petitioner was required to print these books for which purpose the petitioner has purchased ink and chemicals from outside the State. For the assessment year 2003 -04 and 2004 -05, the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Agra, respondent no.3, after considering the matter in detail, passed an assessment order granting exemption from payment of trade tax on the sale of books made by the petitioner in view of the Notification No.TT -2 -63/XI -9(116)/94 -U.P. Act -15/48 -Order -95 dated 16th January, 1995 whereby sale of books was exempted from payment of trade tax.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , respondent no.2, namely, the Additional Commissioner, Grade -I, Commercial Tax, Agra issued a notice under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the assessment year 2003 -04 and 2004 -05 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why reassessment should not be made on the ground that on inquiry it was found that the petitioner had purchased ink from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh amounting to Rs.6,23,096/ - for the purpose of publication of the books and, therefore, such purchase of ink was used for the purpose of execution of a works contract, which was liable to tax under Section 3F of the Act. The petitioner submitted his reply to the notice specifically contending that he is not involved in the execution of any works contract but is involved only in the publishing and sale of books for which purpose ink was purchased as a raw material. Inspite of giving a specific reply, respondent no.2 passed an order dated 7th March, 2008 authorizing the Assessing Officer to make reassessment for the assessment year 2003 -04 and 2004 -05.