.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO TAX REVISION CASE No.270 of 1998 BETWEEN: The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the State Representative before Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, D.No.5-4-400 to 404, Nampally, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. … PETITIONER(S) AND M/s.Laser Labs …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO TAX REVISION CASE No.270 of 1998 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) This tax revision case is filed by the State against the orders dated 29.04.1998 passed in T.A.No.215 of 1998 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Heard Sri A.V.Krishna Kaundinya, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the petitioner. Though this matter is posted yesterday and today, none appears for the respondent herein. Perused the material available on record. The questions involved in this appeal are whether the entire process of developing and printing the exposed roll of the customer would constitute ‘works contract’ involved in the sale of material and whether the disputed turnover in this regard is liable for payment of tax. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the questions involved in this tax revision case are squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD v. UNION OF INDIA[1], wherein it was held that if the nature of the transaction involved in a composite contract of service and sale, it is possible for the State to tax the sale element provided there is a discernible sale and only to the extent relatable to such sale, and, in that view of the matter, the entire process exercised by the respondent would certainly fall within the ambit of ‘works contract’ involved in the sale of material and so, the respondent is liable to pay tax on the disputed turnover. Following the said decision, the tax revision case is allowed holding that the respondent-assessee is liable for tax on the disputed turnover. No costs. ______________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J) ____________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J) 17th February, 2010 CVRK [1] (2006) 145 STC 91