Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Pradeep Printing Press - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 4. there is no controversy that the real point for decision is whether the contract between the dealer and the customer was a single and indivisible contract embracing the entire transaction of purchase of paper as well as its printing so that the sale transaction was really of the printing material and not paper alone.j.s. verma, c.j.1. these revisions under section 15 of the rajasthan sales tax act, 1954 as amended by the 1984 act are against the order passed in appeals by the rajasthan sales tax tribunal.2. this common order shall dispose of both the above revisions relating to the same dealer and arising out of a common order passed by a division bench of the rajasthan sales tax tribunal in two special appeals under section 14(4a) of the rajasthan sales tax act, 1954. the dealer is the same and these two matters relate to two different periods of assessment.3. the dealer owned a printing press at abu road. it printed bill-books, letter pads, registers, etc., in pursuance of the orders placed by the customers. the practice followed was to issue two separate bills to each customer, one for the price of paper and the other for the printing charges. the printing in each case was done according to the specifications and instructions given by the particular customer. the dealer claimed that the sale price of the paper alone had to be taken into account for computing the taxable turnover and that the cost of printing which was shown in a separate bill could not be included in the sale price to form a part of the turnover. the assessing authority rejected the dealer's contention and that view was upheld up to the stage of revision decided by a single member of the tribunal. however, in the special appeals filed before a division bench of the tribunal contrary view has been taken in favour of the dealer. hence these revisions by the revenue.4. there is no controversy that the real point for decision is whether the contract between the dealer and the customer was a single and indivisible contract embracing the entire transaction of purchase of paper as well as its printing so that the sale transaction was really of the printing material and not paper alone. if the contract was such and was indivisible then only the printing charges can be included as part of the sale price so as to ultimately form a part'of the turnover. however, if there were two separate transactions, one of the purchase of paper and thereafter a separate and divisible contract for printing so that a customer could merely purchase the paper from the dealer without getting it also printed by the dealer, then there would be two separate contracts and the printing charges being merely the labour charges could not be included in the sale price. the assessing authority and the other higher authorities up to the single bench of the tribunal held that the contract was one and indivisible, i.e., of the former category, while the division bench of the tribunal has held it to be of the latter category. the question is whether there is any ground for interference in this revision.5. learned counsel for the dealer contended that the finding is one of fact based on appreciation of evidence with which no interference can be made in the revision. there can be no doubt that if the finding is of this kind then no interference is permissible. however, learned counsel for the revenue pointed out that the finding is vitiated on account of the fact that vital evidence in the form of admission of the dealer has been ignored by the division bench of the tribunal while reversing the consistent finding of the authorities below. it appears that one of the documents forming part of the material on the basis of which this question had to be decided is a register maintained by the dealer in which the orders placed by the customers were written by the dealer and that the entries therein indicated that the customer was to be charged the specified combined price of paper and printing and the accounts also showed that the expenses incurred on both paper and printing were shown together. the effect of these entries made by the dealer in his register was considered by the assessing authority before reaching the conclusion that the contract was a single contract which was indivisible. the finding of the assessing authority was affirmed up to the stage of hearing of the matter by a single bench of the tribunal. it is only the division bench of the tribunal which has reversed the finding. before recording the finding of reversal it was necessary for the division bench of the tribunal to have considered every piece of evidence on which reliance was placed by the subordinate authorities in support of the contrary conclusion. a perusal of the impugned order passed by the division bench shows that it has not considered these entries in the dealer's register and the effect thereof. the entries being relied on by the revenue as admission of the dealer they are undoubtedly of vital importance and the finding of reversal reached without considering the same is obviously vitiated for this reason. it is, therefore, necessary to require the division bench of the tribunal to decide the special appeals afresh with advertence to these observations.6. consequently, these revisions are allowed. the impugned order passed by a division bench of the tribunal is set aside and the special appeals before it are required to be decided afresh in accordance with law.7. no costs.