ORDER H. S. KAMATH, PRESIDENT. - The applicant is a printing concern (a) doing job work for customers, sometimes on paper supplied by them, and sometimes on paper provided by itself, and (b) selling stationary etc., with printed letter heads. Other transactions of the applicant need not concern us in this case. The applicant's grievance is in respect of a sum of Rs. 43,053-8-0 representing the sale price of printed goods for which the paper was provided by itself. The Assessing Officer - the Assistant Commissioner - rejected the applicant's claim for exclusion of this sum from the taxable turnover. The Commissioner, in appeal, maintained the rejection of the claim and the result is this application for revision of the commissioner's order. It may be added that the assessment relates to the very first quarter after the coming into force of the Act. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant has confined himself practically to one single argument. He points out that where the paper is provided by the customer, the transaction of supply to him of the printed goods (the paper supplied by the customer with the printing done on it by the applicant) is not assessed to tax. In his view, the supply of the paper by the applicant-printer should make no difference to the transaction, as, in that case, the applicant acts as no more than an agent for the customer, buying the paper for him from the vendors of paper and also paying the sales tax on such paper. If the tax has, however, not been paid, he agrees it may be collected. 3. The main question for consideration is whether in either type of transaction described in the preceding paragraph, there is a transfer of property in any kind of goods as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act. Now, let us examine what happens when the paper is supplied by the customer and is returned to him by the printer with the printing ordered done on it. In the "printed goods" so received by the customer, the blank paper had already belonged to him and was his property; in addition to that paper, all that he has received is the intangible effect or outcome of the work done on it by the printer, using his tools and his printer's ink. In the "printed goods" so received by the customer, the blank paper had already belonged to him and was his property; in addition to that paper, all that he has received is the intangible effect or outcome of the work done on it by the printer, using his tools and his printer's ink. It was suggested that property may be considered as having been transferred in the printer's ink; that, however, is not a fact. There has been no transfer of printer's ink, but only of the impressions made by it on paper, with the help of the printer's tools. Such impressions cannot be considered as goods, as defined in Section 2(d); for, as stated earlier, they are no more than the intangible effect or outcome of the work done by the printer on the paper. When we come to the second type of transaction, however, the position is different. What is transferred to the customer is not merely the intangible effect or outcome of the printer's work, but also the property in the paper on which such work has been done and which, at no time in the past, belonged to the customer. The printed goods - as the paper with the printing done on it may be called - clearly come within the definition of goods contained in Section 2(d). The conclusion is, therefore, inescapable that in the first type of transaction where the paper is supplied by the customer, there has been no sale and that in the second type of transaction, where the paper is provided by the printer, there has been a sale. 4. Next, let us consider the argument that in the second type of transaction, the printer should be regarded as being no more than an agent for the customer in buying the paper for him from the vendors of paper. Such a relationship of principal and agent between the customer and the printer cannot be presumed, much less can it be considered as proved, merely because it is pleaded in these proceedings. On the contrary, such facts as can be gathered from the record would show that the relationship between the parties was certainly one of principal and principal. Such a relationship of principal and agent between the customer and the printer cannot be presumed, much less can it be considered as proved, merely because it is pleaded in these proceedings. On the contrary, such facts as can be gathered from the record would show that the relationship between the parties was certainly one of principal and principal. This conclusion is supported further by the alternative plea taken both before the Sales Tax Commissioner and before the Board, namely, that "the only part (of the goods), if at all taxable, was the cost of paper supplied......" If the applicant-concern had unrebuttable evidence that it was no more than an agent of the customer in regard to the supply of the paper used for printing, the proper course for it was to produce such evidence and not to agree, even by way of alternative prayer, to the inclusion of the cost of the paper in the taxable turnover. As for the merits of the alternative prayer itself, it is based on a misconception of the legal position. What is taxed is the turnover made up of the sale price of goods sold or supplied (Section 2(j)) [less certain deductions with which we are not concerned here]. Goods sold or supplied in this case are not just the paper on which the printing has been done, but the printed goods, as defined in paragraph 3 above. If the transaction is taxable, there can be no doubt that the entire sale price of the printed goods should be included in the taxable turnover. 5. In coming to these conclusions, we are fortified by the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and of the Privy Council in the cases of The King v. Dominion Press Limited ([1927] Dom. L.R. 225), and Dominion Press Limited v. Minister of Customs and Excise ([1928] A.C. 340). The Supreme Court of Canada held that the job printer, whose work consists in executing special orders for customers, but who procures the material upon which such orders are to be executed, is a manufacturer selling a product and his business is not a lease or hire of work and services. The questions put to the printers in this case and their answers suggest a similarity to the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant before us. The questions put to the printers in this case and their answers suggest a similarity to the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant before us. The decision of the Canadian Supreme Court was upheld by the Privy Council. 6. For the reasons given above, we are satisfied that the case has been rightly decided by the learned Sales Tax Commissioner and we dismiss this application for revision. Application dismissed.