RAJASTHAN PRINTING AND LITHO WORKS LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is a printing concern (a) doing job work for customers, sometimes on paper supplied by them, and sometimes on paper provided by itself, and (b) selling stationary etc., with printed letter heads. Other transactions of the applicant need not concern us in this case. The applicant's grievance is in respect of a sum of Rs. 43,053-8-0 representing the sale price of printed goods for which the paper was provided by itself. The Assessing Officer - the Assistant Commissioner - rejected the applicant's claim for exclusion of this sum from the taxable turnover. The Commissioner, in appeal, maintained the rejection of the claim and the result is this application for revision of the commissioner's order. It may be added that the assessment relates to the very first quarter after the coming into force of the Act.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant has confined himself practically to one single argument. He points out that where the paper is provided by the customer, the transaction of supply to him of the printed goods (the paper supplied by the customer with the printing done on it by the applicant) is not assessed to tax. In his view, the supply of the paper by the applicant-printer should make no difference to the transaction, as, in that case, the applicant acts as no more than an agent for the customer, buying the paper for him from the vendors of paper and also paying the sales tax on such paper. If the tax has, however, not been paid, he agrees it may be collected.

(3.) NEXT , let us consider the argument that in the second type of transaction, the printer should be regarded as being no more than an agent for the customer in buying the paper for him from the vendors of paper. Such a relationship of principal and agent between the customer and the printer cannot be presumed, much less can it be considered as proved, merely because it is pleaded in these proceedings. On the contrary, such facts as can be gathered from the record would show that the relationship between the parties was certainly one of principal and principal. This conclusion is supported further by the alternative plea taken both before the Sales Tax Commissioner and before the Board, namely, that "the only part (of the goods), if at all taxable, was the cost of paper supplied..." If the applicant-concern had unrebuttable evidence that it was no more than an agent of the customer in regard to the supply of the paper used for printing, the proper course for it was to produce such evidence and not to agree, even by way of alternative prayer, to the inclusion of the cost of the paper in the taxable turnover. As for the merits of the alternative prayer itself, it is based on a misconception of the legal position. What is taxed is the turnover made up of the sale price of goods sold or supplied (Section 2(j)) [less certain deductions with which we are not concerned here]. Goods sold or supplied in this case are not just the paper on which the printing has been done, but the printed goods, as defined in paragraph 3 above. If the transaction is taxable, there can be no doubt that the entire sale price of the printed goods should be included in the taxable turnover.