Skip to content


State of Orissa Vs. Sri D.N. Joshi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.J.C. Nos. 27 to 29 of 1968
Judge
Reported in[1971]27STC100(Orissa)
AppellantState of Orissa
RespondentSri D.N. Joshi
Appellant AdvocateS.C. Mohapatra, Standing Counsel, Sales Tax
Respondent AdvocateB. Nayak, Adv.
Cases ReferredState of Orissa v. Ramanath Panda
Excerpt:
.....rejected as unreliable. on the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the agreement was of a composite character, that the contract was indivisible and as such the opposite party is liable to pay sales tax on the entire sum. 5. the questions have been badly drafted......opposite party is the proprietor of a printing press. initially he was assessed to tax for selling printed materials. the first appellate authority confirmed the assessment order. the tribunal, however, held that the receipts granted by the opposite party showed separately the payments made for the paper and printing and as such there was a divisible contract and no sales tax is leviable in respect of printing as it involved only labour contract. aggrieved by this order of the tribunal, the state has come up under section 24(1) of the orissa sales tax act.2. the following questions have been referred to this court:(i) whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ribunal is correct in holding that in all cases where the dealer charged in the sale memos, separately for the.....
Judgment:

G.K. Misra, C.J.

1. The opposite party is the proprietor of a printing press. Initially he was assessed to tax for selling printed materials. The first appellate authority confirmed the assessment order. The Tribunal, however, held that the receipts granted by the opposite party showed separately the payments made for the paper and printing and as such there was a divisible contract and no sales tax is leviable in respect of printing as it involved only labour contract. Aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, the State has come up under Section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act.

2. The following questions have been referred to this court:

(i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ribunal is correct in holding that in all cases where the dealer charged in the sale memos, separately for the cost of paper and printing, the cost of paper only should be taxed and not the full value thereof.

(ii) Whether the mere mention by the dealer of the cost of paper and printing charges separately in the sale memos, in respect of sale of printing materials to customer entitles the dealer to claim that amount separately mentioned towards printing charges cannot be included in the sale price of the materials sold.

(iii) Whether in a case where the conteract was for sale of finished printed articles and where sale of finished printed articles was made by a dealer to customs, mere mention of the cost of paper and printing charges separately in the sale memos, issued by the seller to the customers in respect of such sale of finished printed materials, would entitle the dealer to claim that the sold only paper to the customs and not printed materials, and that the cost of printing shown separately in the sale memos, should not be treated as a part of the sale price of the printed materials sold.

3. The short question for answer is whether there was an indivisible contract for selling printed materials, or whether there was an agreement for separated payment towards cost of paper. The only evidence available in favour of the opposite party consists of the receipts granted by him showing separate payments towards printing charges. The crux of the matter lies in determining the real nature of the agreement when the order was placed. If the agreement was that the price of paper would be paid for separately and that the printing would be done on that paper, then sales tax is not leviable on the cost or printing. The opposite party placed no materials on record it would appear from the narration of facts in the judgment of the Tribunal that the opposite party supplied paper from his own stock and got the printing done on that paper according to the order of the customers.

Mr. Nayak contended that the order book showed that payments were to be made separately for the paper. We do not find any such fact from the materials on record. On the other hand, the order book was rejected as unreliable. Through the final receipts given may be a piece of evidence, there are no materials to rebut the inference drawn against the opposite party from the manner in which orders were placed which made no distinction between payments made towards cost of paper and towards printing charges.

4. Law on this question has been fully discussed in S.J.C. Nos. 7 to 13 of 1968, disposed of on 12th February, 1970 Since reported as State of Orissa v. Ramanath Panda [1971] 27 S.T.C. 98, and it is unnecessary to discuss the same here. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the agreement was of a composite character, that the contract was indivisible and as such the opposite party is liable to pay sales tax on the entire sum.

5. The questions have been badly drafted. So many questions were not necessary. We would reframe the question as follows:-

Whether, when there is an indivisible contract showing an order for purchase of printed material sales tax is payable in respect of the entire charges

On the analysis made above the contract is indivisible and our answer to the question would be that sales tax is payable on the entire charges.

6. In the result, the references are accepted, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.

S. Acharya, J.

I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //