P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.
1. The question that calls for decision in this tax revision case is whether the supply of posters and other publicity materials by the assessee-petitioner to the producers, amounts to a sale.
2. The petitioner-company who in addition to being distributors of films produced by others, produces its own films. It gets huge stocks of publicity material printed and supplies it to the producers at a cost. This cost includes the printing charges paid by him to the printing press inclusive of sales tax thereon, as also five to fifteen per cent. of what is called handling charges. Admittedly, the petitioner could not prove that the so-called handling charges have any relation to the expenditure incurred by him in the matter of handling the publicity material. So the department treated these charges as profit and for that reason it regarded the transactions as sales within the purview of Section 2(n) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
3. The Tribunal relied upon three circumstances in support of its conclusion that these transactions constituted sales within the purview of the Act; firstly, that the appellant has credited the total amount charged to the publicity sale account and debited the producers' accounts, thereby indicating that the publicity material was sold by him to the producers. This entry does not denote that the petitioner merely acted as an agent of the producers in getting the material printed, but indicates that he got them printed at his own cost and supplied them to the producers. As pointed out by the Tribunal, if really the petitioner was not the owner of the publicity material and that the property in the goods really vested in the producer and as such no sale could be said to have been effected, there is no reason why the purchase value should be credited to the particular stock account or the purchase account.
4. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the handling charges reflected the payment for his services, it was observed by the Tribunal that if that were so, they would have been credited to the appropriate service account.
5. Another circumstance called in aid by the department was that in Clause (7) of the agreement which deals with the publicity expenses, condition No. (3) postulated that all bills should be drawn against the distributor. It was pertinently remarked by the Tribunal that if the property in the publicity material was not to vest in the assessee-distributor, the bills would not have to be drawn against him. The fact that some amount was advanced by the producer to the assessee would not change the character of the transaction.
6. These three circumstances, in our opinion, lend support to the conclusion of the Tribunal.
7. The Tribunal further held that the petitioner is a dealer, in that he was getting the publicity material printed and supplying it to the producers with a profit-motive and that being so he falls within the definition of a dealer under Section 2(e) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
8. Sri Ranganathachari tried to explain away several of the factors indicated above by suggesting that it might have been a mistake committed by his client in making the entries in the accounts. This is not an explanation that was offered by anyone on behalf of the petir tioner at any time before and it is also difficult to believe that these entries are the result of a mistake. In these circumstances, we find it difficult to accede to this suggestion. We are not able to find any ground or justification to differ from the conclusion of the department and the Tribunal that the transactions in question constituted sales which would be subject to tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
9. In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 50.