Decided on March 03,2009

A.K. Paper Products (P) Limited Appellant


Manoranjan Virk, Member (A) - (1.) THIS appeal is filed against the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, for the assessment year 1996 -97 (APGST). It is the submission of the appellant that the first appellate authority erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellants have been supplying paper to M/s. BHEL., with their monogram printed on the paper is nothing but sale of printed paper and does not fall within the ambit of works contract. It is their contention that when a monogram is printed for a particular client and letter heads, invoices, delivery challans, etc., are also printed with the clients' name on the same, such forms, certificates, invoices etc., cannot be sold to anybody else. Therefore, it is their contention that this is to be regarded as a works contract. Further, they have contended that this is a works contract for which they are also eligible for composition U/s. 5G of the APGST Act, 1957 as the same has not been prohibited by the Government, G.O., issued in this respect. They have relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamilnadu v. Anandam Viswanathan : (1989) 73 STC 1 and also the judgment of the Madras High Court in case of Babu Litho Press v. State of Tamilnadu : (2001) 124 STC 663.
(2.) THE learned State Representative has supported the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and has stated that printing of monogram does not involve a high level of skill, therefore, this has to be regarded only as a sale of paper and not as a works contract. Having heard both sides and having gone through the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), we are of the opinion that the work -undertaken by the appellant is to be regarded as a works contract. The printing of Monogram on the stationery and letter heads of companies like BHEL etc., in our opinion would render the paper printed forms etc., so printed usable only by the company whose monogram/name appears on such printed forms. Such paper certificate forms etc., can be purchased only by the customer on whose express orders the monogram has been printed. If that customer does not purchase this paper for any reason then such paper can only be used as a rough paper or waste paper and nothing else. Whether printing of monogram involves a high level skill or not is therefore not a question here. The question here is that the paper was printed on the orders of a specific customer and can only be sold to such specific customer. The work of printing was undertaken only for the particular customer for his specific needs and cannot be sold like ordinary paper. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is not well reasoned and not in accordance with law and deserves to be set -aside and is accordingly set -aside. In result, the appeal is allowed. Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him and pronounced on this the 3rd of March, 2009.;

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