
Case Details: Aristo Printers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow (2025) 35 Centax 89 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
- S/Shri Niraj Kumar Singh, Advocate, Rohit Singh & Satyajeet Kumar, AOR’s, for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Sandeep Singh Somaria, Advocate & Bhakti Vardhan Singh, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, engaged in printing lottery tickets on paper supplied by its clients, independently procured ink, processing materials, and chemicals used in the printing process. The jurisdictional officer assessed tax liability under Section 3F(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, treating the contract for printing lottery tickets as a works contract involving the transfer of property in goods. The petitioner contended that the ink and chemicals were merely consumables and did not result in a tangible transfer of property, arguing against the applicability of the tax. The High Court upheld the levy under the said provision, leading to the matter being placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the contract for printing of lottery tickets was a works contract within the meaning of Section 3F(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, as there was a transfer of property in ink and chemicals used in execution of such contract. It observed that the taxable or ‘deemed sale’ takes place at the precise moment when the ink is applied to the paper, as this constitutes incorporation of goods in the works. The Court further held that the ink and chemicals, being consumed and absorbed in the printing process, become an integral part of the lottery tickets, resulting in tangible transfer of property in a composite good comprising ink and processing chemicals. Since all three conditions under Section 3F(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 which are the existence of a works contract, involvement of goods, and transfer of property were fulfilled, the petitioner was held liable to pay tax on the ink and processing materials used in printing. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
List of Cases Cited
- Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2001 (128) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 32]
- Builders Association of India v. Union of India — (1989) 2 SCC 645 — Relied on [Paras 27, 28, 59]
- Collector v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. — 1989 (43) E.L.T. 804 (S.C.) — Noted [Para 58]
- Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Hari and Company — 2006 SCC Online Bom 1466 — Relied on [Paras 14, 44]
- Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Matushree Textile Ltd. — 2003 SCC Online Bom 830 — Relied on [Paras 14, 42, 44, 45, 68]
- Commissioner of Sales Tax v. R.M.D.C. Press Pvt. Ltd. — 1998 SCC Online Bom 435 — Referred [Para 6]
- Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ramdas Sobhraj — 2012 SCC Online Bom 1608 — Relied on [Para 45]
- Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M.K. Velu — 1993 SCC Online Ker 577 — Overruled [Paras 11, 51, 54, 61, 64]
- Dynamic Industrial and Cleaning Services (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala — 1994 SCC Online Ker 379 — Overruled [Para 52]
- Enviro Chemicals v. State of Kerala — 2011 SCC Online Ker 3685 — Relied on [Paras 55, 56, 57, 62, 63]
- Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan — (1993) 1 SCC 364 — Relied on [Paras 29, 30, 59, 60, 61]
- Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu — 2014 (304) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) = 2014 (34) S.T.R. 641 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 32]
- Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Karnataka — 2014 (303) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 2014 (34) S.T.R. 481 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 31, 32, 59]
- Microtol Sterilisation Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala — 2009 SCC Online Ker 1480 — Overruled [Paras 53, 54, 61, 64]
- Mohan Offset Printers v. State of Tamil Nadu — 2010 SCC Online Mad 587 — Relied on [Para 46]
- Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi — (1978) 4 SCC 36 — Noted [Para 23]
- Pest Control India Ltd. v. Union of India — 1989 SCC Online Pat 288 — Overruled [Paras 11, 50, 54, 61, 64]
- Rainbow Colour Lab v. State of M.P. — 2001 (134) E.L.T. 332 (S.C.) — Overruled [Paras 6, 32]
- State of Karnataka v. Pro Lab. — 2015 (321) E.L.T. 366 (S.C.) = 2017 (51) S.T.R. 193 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 32]
- State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Company (Madras) Ltd. — 2015 (330) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.) — Noted [Paras 22, 23]
- State of Tamil Nadu v. S.S.M. Processing Mills — 2013 SCC Online Mad 2539 — Noted [Paras 56, 57]
- Teaktex Processing Complex Ltd. v. State of Kerala — 2002 SCC Online Ker 720 — Relied on [Para 43]
- Unique Traders v. Commercial Tax Officer-1 — 2020 SCC Online Mad 1155 — Relied on [Para 47]
- Xerox Modicorp Ltd. v. State of Karnataka — (2005) 7 SCC 380 — Relied on [Paras 48, 62]