JUDGMENT K. P. BALANARAYANA MARAR, J. - The revision is directed against the order of the Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palghat, in T.A. No. 252 of 1985. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) is the revision-petitioner. Respondent, the assessee, is engaged in the business of printing and supplying of printed materials. We are concerned with the assessment year 1979-80. The assessee had entered into an agreement with the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ("the corporation" for short) on August 17, 1978, for supply of tickets at a specified rate. The assessee returned a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 12,28,189.34. The Additional Sales Tax Officer, Kunnamkulam, completed the assessment on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 14,65,160. The assessee preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax Sales Tax, Trichur. He declined to interfere for the reason that patent irregularity or impropriety in the original assessment completed by the assessing authority was not noticed warranting interference under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. An appeal was preferred before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both sides held that the transaction of printing and supply of tickets to the corporation is not a transaction of sale of goods exigible to the levy of sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal observed that what was agreed to between the parties was the supply of tickets of given specifications and the goods supplied were not intended to be sold in the open market. It is a case of "mixed contract" for "work and labour" involving supply of materials, one and indivisible. On these findings the appeal was allowed and the assessing authority was directed to amend the orders. Hence this revision. 2. It is urged by learned counsel for revision-petitioner that the agreement between the respondent and the corporation is for supply of finished goods which implies sales exigible to tax under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The learned Government Pleader has placed before us the relevant file which contains the agreement entered into between the respondent and the corporation. The respondent had agreed to print and supply various items of tickets to the corporation in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the tender notification and the order of the corporation. The learned Government Pleader has placed before us the relevant file which contains the agreement entered into between the respondent and the corporation. The respondent had agreed to print and supply various items of tickets to the corporation in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the tender notification and the order of the corporation. The various items of tickets are to be printed and supplied by the respondent and the rates payable thereon by the corporation are specified in the subject order. The rates specified are inclusive of all costs of materials, transporting charges, taxes, if any or any other incidental charges. The short point for consideration is whether printing of tickets for the corporation can be taken to be a contract for sale of a finished product or whether it is only a contract for labour. 3. That the contract between the assessee and the corporation is for supply of printed tickets is not disputed. According to the assessee the tickets are not finished products and the work of printing amounts to a works contract. It is pointed out that the tickets printed by the respondent cannot be sold in open market to any other person and it has no commercial value. We are referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in [1983] 54 STC 382 (Court Press Job Branch v. State of Tamil Nadu). In that case the disputed turnover represented substantially the turnover relating to printing of judgments, question papers, wedding cards, letter heads and bills, ledgers and binding works for certain customers. The Madras High Court held that if the intention of the bargain between the parties is taken as a conclusive factor, then the assessee cannot be taken to have sold the wedding cards, bill books, question papers, account books, etc., which have been printed specially for particular persons. It was also observed that the finished product cannot be sold in the market to any other person and it has not much commercial value. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in [1974] 33 STC 68 (Sales Tax Officer v. I. V. Somasundaran). In that decision this Court has taken the view that printing of letter heads, judgments of courts, etc., using the assessee's paper is only in the nature of works contract. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in [1974] 33 STC 68 (Sales Tax Officer v. I. V. Somasundaran). In that decision this Court has taken the view that printing of letter heads, judgments of courts, etc., using the assessee's paper is only in the nature of works contract. The Madras High Court has relied on an earlier Madras decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. Anandam Viswanathan [1977] 39 STC 226. In that case the court took the view that printing of question papers for educational institutions cannot be taken to be a contract of sale of a finished product and in the nature of things, such a contract can only be a contract for labour. An appeal was filed against this decision before the Supreme Court by special leave. The decision in that appeal is reported in [1989] 73 STC 1 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Anandam Viswanathan). After an exhaustive survey of the various decisions touching the subject the Supreme Court held : "The primary difference between a contract for work or service and a contract for sale is that in the former there is in the person performing or rendering service no property in the thing produced as a whole, notwithstanding that a part or even the whole of the material used by him may have been his property. Where the finished product supplied to a particular customer is not a commercial commodity in the sense that it cannot be sold in the market to any other person, the transaction is only a works contract." 4. It was also observed that the nature of the contract and the transaction must be found out in each case. It was observed that the fact that in the execution of a contract for work some materials are used and the property in the goods so used passes to the other party, the contractor undertaking to do the work will not necessarily be deemed, on that account, to sell the materials. 5. The position therefore is clear. If the finished product supplied to the customer is not a commercial commodity in the sense that it cannot be sold in the open market to any other person the transaction does not amount to a sale whereas it is only works contract. The contract in this case was to supply printed tickets to the corporation. If the finished product supplied to the customer is not a commercial commodity in the sense that it cannot be sold in the open market to any other person the transaction does not amount to a sale whereas it is only works contract. The contract in this case was to supply printed tickets to the corporation. Those tickets can be used only by the corporation and none else. It cannot be sold in the market to any other person. The contract therefore amounts to a works contract and not a transaction of sale of goods exigible to sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. No error of law has been committed by the Tribunal in deleting the amount in dispute from the taxable turnover determined by the assessing officer. 6. In this connection the learned Senior Government Pleader would contend that the cost of paper has to be assessed separately. He relies on the observation of the Supreme Court in Anandam Viswanathan's case at page 15 of the [1989] 73 STC 1. While observing that the entire price for the printed question papers would have been entitled to be excluded from the turnover it is stated that in the instant case the demand notes prepared by the assessee show the costs of paper separately. It appears that the assessee has treated the supply of paper separately. The Supreme Court observed that except the materials supplied on the basis of such contract the contract will continue to be a contract for work and labour and no liability to sales tax would arise in respect thereof. Attention is drawn to the statement containing the details of printing materials purchased by vouchers in the year 1979-80 attached to the trading, profit and loss account as on March 31, 1980. There is no material on record to show that paper was supplied on the basis of the agreement between the parties. In order to exclude the cost of paper the paper should have been supplied on the basis of the contract as per the decision of the Supreme Court. The passage relied on by the learned Government Pleader is therefore of no assistance to the revision petitioner. In the result the revision is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.