Decided on June 08,1998

National Litho Printers Appellant


M.Ramakrishna, Chairman - (1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the orders passed by the learned Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada, in Appeal No. VJA. 11/93/97 -98, dated 31.7.1997, who dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee against the endorsement issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Seetharampuram, Vijayawada dated 18.6.1997, who rejected the application in Form 'L' filed by the appellants herein to the said endorsement. The facts that gave rise to the filing of the present appeal in brief are: -that the appellants are printers of Cine Wall Posters, and they were usually placed orders for printing and supplying of Cine Wall Posters and accordingly the orders were being complied with. The appellants filed an application in Form 'L' under Section. 5G of the APGST Act read with Rule 6B of the APGST Rules. The assessing authority rejected the application of the appellants on the ground that the appellants are not doing works contract, and they are only manufacturers of Cine Wall Posters and registered under Section 5B of the APGST Act. Relying upon the decisions reported in : 67 STC 53, : 68 STC 245 and, 11 STC 52, the contention of the appellants that their work is only execution of works was rejected. Aggrieved against the said rejection orders, the appellant preferred the appeal but the learned Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada confirmed the orders of the Commercial Tax Officer, referred to above dated 18.6.1997. Hence the present appeal before us.
(2.) REITERATING the contention urged before the lower authorities, it is contended by the learned Authorised Representative that the amounts received by it on manufacture and supply of Cine Wall Posters is not liable to tax as it related to job work. The Department did not agree with the same and making assessment on the ground that the supply amounted to sale. It is submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that in order to buy peace with the Department the appellants filed application in Form V to pay compounded tax at 2% under Section 5G of the APGST Act and filed application in Form 'L' before the assessing authorities who rejected the same on the ground that the appellants manufactured goods relating to sale of Cine Wall Posters and it is not works contract. The learned Authorised Representative has invited our attention to the definition of the word 'Works Contract' which has been amended with effect from 1.4.1995 and the definition prior to the amendment and contended that they were 'manufacture' was introduced in the definition with effect from 1.4.1995 and therefore any agreements for carrying out manufacture amounted to works contract while posters manufactured under an agreement which cannot be sold in the market and any other commodity they are only useful for those who placed orders for preparation and supply.
(3.) THE learned Authorised Representative has also explained to us about the process of manufacture of the wall posters as follows: - "A producer or a person who intends to place order gives a model on the basis of the still photographs taken during film shooting. This model is put to process of taking as a negative and then composed and transferred into zinc plates and men print in on paper of various sizes depending on the sizes required by the producer who placed the order. After the process is completed the zinc plates are washed and cleaned and kept ready for subsequent use".;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.