IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 16 of 2009() ------------------------ TA.188/2007 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ M/S.SUBHA PRINTS & PACKS ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA BY G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.16 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised is whether the Tribunal is justified in confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner issued under Section 35 of the KGST Act directing revision of petitioner's assessment completed under the KGST Act for the year 2001-02 for bringing to tax sale of printed materials which were granted exemption in the original assessment. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not sold any printed materials, but on the other hand, petitioner has done printing work for others which is works contract. The Assessing Officer granted exemption accepting the claim. The Deputy Commissioner, however, set aside the assessment holding that under item 106 of the First Schedule, sale of printed materials attract tax at the rate of 8%. It is this order which is confirmed by the Tribunal, against which this revision is filed. 2 2. On going through the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal, we do not find that any of the authorities had occasion to see work orders between the petitioner and the customers and copies of the products made and sold to them. Both the authorities have assumed that items sold are standard printed materials which are sold by printing presses for use by any customer. If this is the factual position, then the order of the Tribunal confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner is correct. On the other hand, if petitioner has obtained work orders for printing and has done printing with locally purchased paper, then petitioner is entitled to exemption in the course of assessment treating the turnover as works contract. While we confirm the order of the Tribunal which is based on factual assumption that items sold are standard printed materials not made against any party's order, we leave it open to the assessee to produce work orders and other details before the Assessing Officer in the course of revision of assessment for considering assessee's claim for exemption or 3 assessment of the turnover under works contract. The revision case is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms