R. RAMAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS S. T. R. P. is filed under section 23, sub-clause (1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, against the order dated January 9, 1985, passed in S. T. A. No. 798 of 1980 on the file of the karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore, confirming the order dated September 11, 1979, in appeal No. AP/147/79-80/2480 on the file of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore City Division, Bangalore, confirming the order dated march 31, 1979, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, XVII Circle, Bangalore, for the assessment year April 1, 1977 to March 31, 1978. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a photographic block-maker who supplied such blocks to his clients according to the specifications and designs of the customers. In relation to the period April 1, 1977 to March 31, 1978, the Commercial Tax Officer, XVII Circle, Bangalore, before whom the petitioner is assessed to sales tax, completed the assessment under the provisions of the karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and levied sales tax on the turnover of sales of blocks. Subsequently, the assessee has filed a revised return of turnover and claimed deductions and exemptions for the sale of metal blocks as the block-making involves technical skill and expertise. Thus it is not a sale attracting the sales tax. ( 3 ) THE assessing authority has rejected this plea and held that the assessee as a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, purchases metal blocks, zinc sheets, films, process engraving plates, copper sheets on "c" forms for use in the manufacture of metal blocks for sale, which goods are authorised under the R. O. issued. Similarly, he purchases the same goods in the local market also from the registered dealer paying local tax for use in the manufacture of metal blocks. All the purchases are vouched and accounted duly in the books of accounts. The assessee after manufacturing metal blocks sells in the State and collects Karnataka sales tax at 4 per cent which is in order. ( 4 ) THE first appellate authority,. All the purchases are vouched and accounted duly in the books of accounts. The assessee after manufacturing metal blocks sells in the State and collects Karnataka sales tax at 4 per cent which is in order. ( 4 ) THE first appellate authority,. e. , the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) on an appeal against this order, has held that : "making of blocks cannot be considered as works contract and therefore, the appellant has rightly declared the sales of blocks during the year and has rightly collected and paid the tax on the said sales which was accepted by the Commercial Tax Officer. " ( 5 ) THE appellant (petitioner herein) has questioned the correctness of these orders before the karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The learned Members of the Appellate Tribunal upheld the findings of the first appellate authority and held that the transactions of the petitioner herein in respect of blocks are one of sale and the authorities are justified in accepting the return under section 12 (2) of the Act filed by the petitioner herein declaring the sales of blocks as liable to tax. ( 6 ) NOW the questions that arise for our decision are : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the petitioner is liable to he assessed to sales tax on the supply of photographic blocks to his customers ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the transactions of the petitioner in respect of blocks are one of sale and exigible to levy of tax ? (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are valid and sustainable in law ? ( 7 ) THE petitioner has contended that the process of "block" making involves technical skill and expertise. After the artwork or the design is received the block-maker has to take a negative film of the art of design from a photographic camera in attractive angles and opaquing conducted wherever necessary which itself is a highly trained and skilful job. ( 7 ) THE petitioner has contended that the process of "block" making involves technical skill and expertise. After the artwork or the design is received the block-maker has to take a negative film of the art of design from a photographic camera in attractive angles and opaquing conducted wherever necessary which itself is a highly trained and skilful job. The image is then transferred on to the chemically coated photosensitised metal by exposure to sun light/are lamp placed into and heated after coating specially mixed chemicals - image becomes glossy and light - liquid chemical applied on the surface of the metal - catches on the exposed surface etching done depression on low image areas - depression in nitric acid tray - etching powder applied - put into etching machine - image further depressed - image becomes sharper - being done many time till the image is sharp and clear - out the unwanted area of the plate and mounting the same on a wooden block. The photographic block is not a goods of general nature to cover the tax liability. Thus it is not a commercial goods but only a commodity made to a particular individual and its utility is limited to that individual only. ( 8 ) SRI E. R. Indrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the assessing authority and the first and second appellate authorities have committed an error in not taking into consideration that the photographic block-making involves mainly the skill and expertise. Hence preparation of the photographic block and supplies to a particular individual does not amount to sale. Hence the orders require interference in this petition. ( 9 ) IN the case of the Assistant Sales Tax Officer v. B. C. Kame, reported in [1977] 39 STC 237, a distinction was made with regard to contract of sale or contract of work and labour for the purpose of imposing sales tax by the Supreme Court of India. In this decision, the respondent kame was the proprietor of the photo studio and he was also carrying on business inter align of buying and selling photographic goods. In this decision, the respondent kame was the proprietor of the photo studio and he was also carrying on business inter align of buying and selling photographic goods. After buying the photographic goods, he used to make use of those goods (i) in taking photographs and supplying prints thereof, (ii) in making enlargements for the clients who bring their own negatives, and (iii) in preparing positive prints of the same size from the negatives brought by the clients. The sales tax authority assessed his turnover on best judgment basis for the year 1964-65. The respondent has contended in the petition challenging the levy of sales tax that he is taking photographs, preparing its negative and thereafter the final positive prints for supplying the same to the client which is nothing but a contract of work and labour and does not enter into a sale transaction. The Madhya Pradesh High court had accepted this contention and held that the respondent was not liable to pay sales tax in respect of the items to which the writ petition related. On these materials the Supreme Court of india held that : "when a photographer undertakes to take a photograph, develop the negative, or do other photographic work and thereafter supply the prints to his client, he cannot be said to enter into a contract for sale of goods. The contract on the contrary is for use of skill and labour by the photographer to bring about a desired result. The occupation of a photographer, except in so far as he sells the goods purchased by him, is essentially one of skill and labour. Therefore, sales tax is not payable by a photographer under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, when the photographer takes photographs or does other photographic work and thereafter supplies the photographic prints to his client or customer. " ( 10 ) THE next ruling relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is between the commissioner of Sales Tax v. L. Vasudeo Rao, reported in [1981] 48 STC 447 (MP ). In this case, the respondent was engaged in the business of block-making and was assessed to tax under the Act. " ( 10 ) THE next ruling relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is between the commissioner of Sales Tax v. L. Vasudeo Rao, reported in [1981] 48 STC 447 (MP ). In this case, the respondent was engaged in the business of block-making and was assessed to tax under the Act. The assessing authority after negativing the contention of the assessee that block-making was a works contract involving labour and skill and therefore, the turnover of the assessee was not liable to sales tax, held that there was a sale of materials utilised by the preparation of the block and estimating the value of the materials assessed it to tax. The another question involved was that, the assessee sold an offset printing machine, it was no longer required due to closing of the branch. He has contended that the sale of offset printing machine was also not liable to tax. The assessing authority did not accept the contention and passed assessment orders in respect of block-making and sale of machinery. The appeals preferred by the assessee against the assessment orders were dismissed and the appellate authority affirmed the findings on both the counts. On further appeals by the assessee, the Board of Revenue upheld the contentions of the assessee and held that the block-making was works contract involving labour and skill and therefore, the turnover of the assessee was not liable to tax. The department submitted applications to the Board of Revenue for referring the question of law and then the board of Revenue referred the question of law for the opinion of the High Court. The Division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held this question in the affirmative relying on the decision of B. C. Kame AIR1977 SC 1642 , (1977 )1 SCC634 , [1977 ]2 scr435 , [1977 ]39 STC237 (SC ) referred to above. ( 11 ) THE learned High Court Government Advocate has distinguished the decision on the ground that the learned Judges have held the point in the affirmative as they have found the value of the materials is only 20 per cent of the total price of the blocks and the blocks are used only for a particular customer and not for any other person. ( 12 ) LEARNED Government Advocate has further submitted that since there is a direct decision covering this point by this Court, reported in State of Mysore v. A. C. Made Gowda (1961) Mys lj 218 and the judgment of the Kerala High Court in John Mathew Bros. v. State of Kerala reported in [1978] 42 STC 140, there is no difficulty in holding that block-making and selling to the customer amounts to sale which is liable to sales tax. Learned advocate has further submitted that the petitioner purchased the goods worth Rs. 77,607. 16 in the course of inter-State trade by issue of declaration in form C certifying therein that the same are being used in the manufacture of goods for sale. It is further submitted that after making the blocks the petitioner sold the goods and collected the tax from his customers at 4 per cent. Hence he cannot he allowed to say that the transaction connected to his business is not a sale. ( 13 ) IN Made Gowda's case (1961) Mys LJ 218 referred to above, the assessee was a registered dealer carrying on business in block-making and essential oils. He was assessed to sales tax at the rate of Re. 0-0-6 for every rupee on such turnover. The Deputy Commissioner of commercial Taxes has revised the tax and calculated at the rate of Re. 0-1-0 for every rupee. The sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, to whom the assessee appealed from the orders of the Deputy commissioner, set aside the assessments in so far as they related to the block-making business of the assessee, on the ground that the agreements between the assessee and his customers, for whom he made the blocks, were in the nature of works contracts. A Division Bench of this Court has set aside the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and restored the order of Sales Tax officer determining the tax at the rate of Re. 0-0-6. The order of the Deputy Commissioner, calculated at an enhanced rate, is also set aside. Justice Somnath lyer, as he then was, after distinguishing the earlier decisions to differentiate the work of skill and labour and sale of goods, held : "an agreement to sell moveable for a price and the passing of property therein pursuant to that agreement are the essential ingredients of a sale of goods. Justice Somnath lyer, as he then was, after distinguishing the earlier decisions to differentiate the work of skill and labour and sale of goods, held : "an agreement to sell moveable for a price and the passing of property therein pursuant to that agreement are the essential ingredients of a sale of goods. The true rule is that if the work and labour is of the essence of the contract, it is a contract for work. If on the contrary the substance of the contract is the production of something to he sold to the customer, it is a contract for the sale of goods. The statement that if the contract be such that it will result in the sale of a chattel, it is a contract of sale, cannot be regarded as indicating a correct test. Where after the customers place orders with a printer for the supply to them of commercial stationery or with a block-maker for blocks, which they are asked to make, those articles are made by the printer and the block-maker in order that they might be sold to the customers held, the contract is not a contract for work. That the articles produced by the assessee were useful only to the customers to whose orders they were prepared cannot also be of any importance. A contract by which a person promises to make goods for another for a price and by which that another promises to pay such price when they are made is a contract for sale of goods, the ownership of the materials on which labour is bestowed or its value being considerations as inconclusive as the relative value of the labour and materials on which it is bestowed. It cannot be concluded that the transaction was a contract for work from the way the bills were prepared, when it is otherwise clear that what was paid by the customer was really the price of the goods sold to him. When a printer prints articles to the order of his customer or a block-maker similarly prepares a block he cannot be said to fit out any moveable property within the meaning of the definition of works contract in section 2 (1) of the Act. " ( 14 ) IN John Mathew Bros. When a printer prints articles to the order of his customer or a block-maker similarly prepares a block he cannot be said to fit out any moveable property within the meaning of the definition of works contract in section 2 (1) of the Act. " ( 14 ) IN John Mathew Bros. case [1978] 42 STC 140 (Kar), the assessee was carrying on the business of drawing, designing, block-making and printing letter-heads, advertisements and the like, claimed exemption in respect of a certain sum representing the value of work and labour supplied. The Sales Tax Officer held that although in the order book maintained by the assessee the charges for each process was separately fixed, the assessee had entered only into a single contract with the customer for printing and supply of the goods and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the exemption. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal held that the order form and the bills made out by the assessee showed the amounts separately in respect of each of the items and, therefore, the exemption claimed by the assessee was allowable. The appellate Tribunal on further appeal held that the mere fact that the order form and the books of account showed the items separately would not entitle the assessee to treat the amount as representing a contract of work and labour as distinct from a contract for sale of materials and claim exemption for that amount. On facts, it was held that : ". . . . . . . . . . . the real question was one of intention as to whether there was a contract for sale and purchase of a chattel as chattel or goods. From that point of view, it would be difficult to say or lay down as a proposition of law that charges separately shown in bills or items separately mentioned in the order form would be conclusive of the nature of the transaction. It made little difference whether the order form or the bills were unilateral documents or bilateral ones to which both parties had affixed their signatures. It made little difference whether the order form or the bills were unilateral documents or bilateral ones to which both parties had affixed their signatures. As it could not be said that the signing of the documents was after a conscious study of, or advertance to, the, lea nature and effect of the transaction, the documents, in the circumstances, could not be regarded as conclusive of the nature of the transaction, whether it was one of a contract for work and labour or sale of the materials. The Tribunal was therefore right in coming to its conclusion. " ( 15 ) IN B. C. Kame's case [1977] 39 STC 237 case referred above, the Supreme Court held that taking of photographs and other allied connected works is only a contract of work and labour, by appreciating that, after purchasing the photographic goods, the respondent used to take photographs and supplied prints to the customers and also used to undertake making of enlargement of photos and preparing positive prints from the negatives brought by the clients. ( 16 ) THE materials brought by the respondent was altogether converted into a different nature after giving away its original form. When that is so, the film after purchasing, is to fit into a camera and by clicking the photo, it has to be processed in the laboratory to take out negatives and by printing those negatives, positive will come and which will he supplied to the customers. Here, the goods for which the tax is already paid, is converted into a different nature, for which, the skill is necessary. A customer here will give an order to get the positive to his desired design which requires the skill of photographer. ( 17 ) IN the present case, the petitioner has purchased the goods by producing 'c' form and prepared the blocks as per specification of designs or photographs supplied by the customers. He does not prepare the designs by using his skill. The customer supplies the design on photo and that plate will be mounted on the metal blocks. The skill or expertise will have a small role in this type of work. Mounting a design on a metal block is done for purpose of selling that block. Therefore, the petitioner was collecting the sales tax from his customers at 4 per cent. The skill or expertise will have a small role in this type of work. Mounting a design on a metal block is done for purpose of selling that block. Therefore, the petitioner was collecting the sales tax from his customers at 4 per cent. ( 18 ) THE decision reported in Sentinel Rolling Shutters and Engineering Company Put. Lid. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax AIR1978 SC 1747 , (1978 )4 SCC260 , [1979 ]1 SCR644 , [1978 ] 42 STC409 (SC ), 1978 (10 )UJ766 (SC ) relied on by the learned counsel Sri Indrakumar is distinguishable. The contract was for fabrication, supply, erection and installation of two types of rolling shutters. The rolling shutters are to be manufactured according to specification, designs, drawings and instructions provided in the contract. Thereafter, the shutters should be erected and installed at his place agreed. The price stipulated in the contract is inclusive of erection and installation charges and his contract does not recognise any dichotomy between fabrication and supply of the rolling shutters and their erection and installation so far as his price is concerned. ( 19 ) THE Supreme Court applied the test formulated in, the Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Purshottam Premji (1970 )2 SCC287 , [1970 ]26 STC38 (SC ) and held : "the primary difference between a contract for work or service and a contract for sale of goods is that in the former there is in the person performing work or rendering service no property in the thing produced as a whole notwithstanding that a part or even the whole of the materials used by him may have been his property. In the case of a contract for sale, the thing produced as a whole has individual existence as the sole property of the party who produced it, at some time before delivery, and the property therein passes only under the contract relating thereto to the other party for price. " here, admittedly, the design is supplied by the customer. What the petitioner doing is that he mounts the design on a metal block manufactured to the specification and sells it. The selling price includes the cost of the block and his labour which is not divisible. Hence metal block-making and selling to a customer is nothing but a contract of sale. It also satisfies the requisites of sale recognised under the Sale of Goods Act. The selling price includes the cost of the block and his labour which is not divisible. Hence metal block-making and selling to a customer is nothing but a contract of sale. It also satisfies the requisites of sale recognised under the Sale of Goods Act. The essential requisites of sale is the transfer of the absolute or general property in a thing for a price in money. There is no reason to depart from the conclusion arrived at in the earlier decision of this Court. In view of the discussions made above, we are constrained to hold question Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the result, this revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. ( 20 ) PETITION dismissed.