Chandamama Printing Press Hyderabad Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.—The petitioner is Chandamama Printing Press (Hyd.) Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. At the order of the customers and according to their specifications, it purchases paper, prints the specified material thereon, cuts them to proper dimensions and supplies to them. They are in the form of labels, or wrappers as they may be called, some of which are placed before us. The question is whether these labels and wrappers fall within entry 143 of the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal has held that it is packing or wrapping paper and merely because something is printed thereon it does not cease to be packing or wrapping paper, within the meaning of clause (iii) of entry 143. The learned counsel for the assessee relies upon an earlier judgment of this Court reported in Bharat Litho Press v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1987] 67 STC 53, where it was held that labels printed by the assessee at the order and according to the specifications of the customer do not fall within entry 143. In this case too we are of the opinion that the labels and wrappers concerned herein cannot be called packing paper or wrapping paper within the meaning of clause (iii) of entry 143. It is true that even if something is printed on wrapping paper it does not cease to be wrapping paper, but that depends upon the nature of printing. If the wrapping paper is printed with flowers or other attractive designs, it remains and continues to be wrapping paper. It must be remembered that entry 143 deals with all kinds of paper. The accent is upon paper. But where wrapping paper is used to bring into existence different goods, to wit labels and wrappers which cannot be used generally as wrapping paper but can be used only as a label or a wrapper, for particular goods, it ceases to be wrapping paper. We must, however, hasten to add that this question has to be decided after examining the particular goods in each case.

It is then argued by the learned Government Pleader that even if for some reason the labels and wrappers concerned herein are not treated as packing paper or wrapping paper within the meaning of clause (iii) of the said entry, it falls within clause (iv) which speaks of "all other kinds of paper and paper board, not otherwise specifically mentioned above". But here again the clause speaks of "paper". To illustrate, a book is also paper printed with certain material, but nobody will call it paper. Once paper is printed with specific material and cut into sizes as per the specification of the customers, as in this case, it ceases to be "paper" within the meaning of entry 143. Indeed this was the contention of the Revenue in the case reported in Bharat Litho Press Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, . There the department contended that the labels and wrappers are not paper-and succeeded, while it is taking a contrary stand in this case. Be that as it may, we do not see sufficient reason to differ from the earlier decision of this Court, particularly having regard to the nature of the labels and wrappers concerned herein. We may reiterate that if the paper is printed with a general design or material which can be used for packing or wrapping of goods generally, it would still be packing paper or wrapping paper. Only where it is printed and cut for being used as label or wrapper for particular goods, it ceases to be packing or wrapping paper.

For the above reasons, the tax revision case is allowed. No costs.

Petition allowed.