BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. ( 1 ) THE instant writ petition is directed against the Judgment and order dated 6th July, 2001, passed in case no. 220 of 2000 by the learned West Bengal Taxation Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Tribunal' ). ( 2 ) BY the said Judgment and order dated 6th July, 2001 the learned tribunal was, inter alia, pleased to dismiss the application of the petitioner and upheld the assessment order dated 5th May, 1988, as well as the appellate authority's order dated 19th July, 1993 and the revisional order dated 22nd May, 2000, in respect of imposition of sales tax upon the petitioner for the assessment period 01. 03. 81 and 28. 02. 82. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case briefly are as follows: the petitioner is a registered dealer, both under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (for short, the said Act) and the Central Sales Tax act, 1956. It is the case of the petitioner, being a company, that it was assessed for the period between 1st March, 1981 and 28th February, 1982 for the purpose of sales tax. The said assessment was made under the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941 (since repealed ). A demand of Rs. 3,04,420 was made by the assessing authority, bringing the proceeds realised by the petitioner company from their customers into tax-levy under the said Act of 1941. The petitioner company thereafter preferred an appeal against the said order of assessment dated 5th May, 1988 under the provisions of section 20 (1) of the said Act before the appellate authority. By an order dated 19th July, 1993, the appellate authority modified the order of assessment dated 5th May, 1988 by reducing the tax payable by the petitioner company to Rs. 1,42,930. 30 in place of the original demand of Rs. 3,04,420. 00. By an order dated 19th July, 1993, the appellate authority modified the order of assessment dated 5th May, 1988 by reducing the tax payable by the petitioner company to Rs. 1,42,930. 30 in place of the original demand of Rs. 3,04,420. 00. Against the appellate authority's order dated 19th july, 1993, the petitioner preferred a revisional application before the west Bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board wherein it was specifically contended that the posters and stickers designed and printed by the petitioner company were not sold as such nor were they transferred as such to the concerned customers of the petitioner company, but they were appropriated to the contract only upon display thereof according to the dictates of the concerned customers and the charges for such posters and stickers and display thereof were composite charges, which, according to the petitioner, would be evident from the supporting copies of debit note raised in that regard, which being a "works Contract" or "contract for Work, Labour, Skill and service" could not be charged to tax as "sale of Goods" under the said act, for the relevant assessment period, in the absence of specific provision in that respect. By an order dated 22nd May, 2000, the revisional application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the West bengal Commercial Taxes Appellate and Revisional Board. It was against this order of dismissal as well as the earlier orders that the writ petitioner company preferred to move an application under section 8 of the West Bengal Tax Tribunal Act 1987 based on which the impugned Judgement and order before us is sought to be challenged by the petitioner company. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the writ petitioner it has been submitted that all material time the company was engaged in the business of advertising, marketing and promotion agent on behalf of different manufacturers, being their customers, with a view to ensure promotion of sales of their customers' manufactured products in the market by means of advertisement and sales promotion activities through various advertising medias, like press, banners, magazines, wall printing, retailer's boards and films/cinema slides, hoardings etc. upon receipt of actual charges therefor from their customers in addition to a commission of 5% such charges. For that purpose, the petitioner company was obliged to design and print posters, handbills, stickers etc. upon receipt of actual charges therefor from their customers in addition to a commission of 5% such charges. For that purpose, the petitioner company was obliged to design and print posters, handbills, stickers etc. and display them at appropriate places according to the dictate of the customers. On behalf of the writ petitioner it has been further contended that for the purpose of their business they entered into agreements with their customers which were purely in the nature of composite 'works contract' involving labour and skill and not for sale of any material simpliciter. ( 5 ) THE learned Tribunal while dealing with the matter recorded the submissions made by the petitioner who contended that this was a case of pure contract of work, labour and skill with their customer and not for sale of any material simpliciter. The petitioner, before the learned tribunal, further contended that the assessing officer erroneously brought the proceeds of that composite work of labour and skill into taxation under the said Act of 1941 holding erroneously that the contract was one for sale of materials. It was further contended by the petitioner that some materials for the posters and stickers were used but property in the said goods was never transferred. The petitioner also cited the monthly bills to show that the supply of the posters and stickers were an indivisible part of a "works contract". It was further contended that the posters and stickers were not sold or transferred to customers but were appropriated to the contract for the purpose of enabling the display thereof and the charges in the bills would go to show the same and as such those were not liable to tax, at the relevant point of time, when there was no existence of section 6 (D) which was introduced by way of amendment in the said Act of 1941 on 1st April, 1984. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the respondent authorities contended before the learned Tribunal that the activities before delivery were nothing but part of the manufacturing process and those had no connection with any composite works contract. Moreover, there were separate bills for posters and stickers and debit notes were raised by petitioner for supplying posters and stickers. So, the transaction relating to posters and stickers was not a composite one and the same was of supply in nature. Moreover, there were separate bills for posters and stickers and debit notes were raised by petitioner for supplying posters and stickers. So, the transaction relating to posters and stickers was not a composite one and the same was of supply in nature. It was further contended by the respondent authorities before the learned Tribunal that there was no compositeness either in the nature of the goods or in the billing. The cost of display was nothing but cost of delivery and the cost of display did in no way pre-dominate the cost of supply of manufactured items, i. e. , posters and stickers. It was therefore contended that sale proceeds of posters and stickers had been rightly and legally taxed. ( 7 ) THE short question that comes up for consideration before us is whether the writ petitioner company would be liable to pay sales tax, as per demand, in respect of supplying of posters and stickers to their customers, for the relevant assessment period, which was prior to the 46th Amendment of the Constitution. ( 8 ) TO give an answer to the short question, the issue that is required to be determined is whether the learned Tribunal's finding that the agreement in the present context held out that the supply of posters and stickers was not a "works contract" but an "out and out sale", was a correct finding in law or not. ( 9 ) IN order to do so and before we embark into the exercise of looking into the various legal pronouncements we need to take a note of the submissions made by the learned Advocates on the point of law involved in this case. ( 10 ) MRS. Seba Roy, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of tamilnadu v. Anandam Viswanathan, reported in (1989)73 Sales Tax cases 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case while relying on earlier decisions held that the Court had to find out the primary object of the transaction and intention of the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme court, in the said Judgment further held as follows: ". . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case while relying on earlier decisions held that the Court had to find out the primary object of the transaction and intention of the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme court, in the said Judgment further held as follows: ". . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 11 ) MRS. Roy had further drawn our attention to the decision of madras High Court in the case of Babu Litho Press v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2001) 124 Sales Tax Cases 663 which has relied on the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ( 12 ) MRS. Roy, learned Advocate, also relied on the decision of the kerala High Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Victory Offset Printers, reported in (1994) 94 Sales Tax Cases 406. Relying on the said decision she submitted that if the finished product supplied to the customer was not a commercial commodity in the sense that it could not be sold in the open market to any other person, the transaction did not amount to a sale, but was only a works contract. She submitted that the Kerala High court in the said decision observed as follows: ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. . 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 13 ) SHE has further relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay v. Radio Advertising Services, reported in (1997) 101 Sales Tax Cases 50. Relying on the said decision she submitted that printing and supplying of additional print from master copy had been held to be 'works Contract' having no commercial value. She further submitted that the Bombay high Court followed the ratio of the decision rendered by the Supreme court of India in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Anandam Viswanathan (supra ). ( 14 ) MR. Laxmi Gupta, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities, on the other hand, submitted that the orders passed by the statutory authorities were not even an attempt to tax works contract. Sales Tax, according to Mr. Gupta, was imposed on a specific finding that the transactions involved sale of goods. ( 15 ) MR. Gupta further submitted that in the instant case raw materials were provided by the petitioner for making of posters and stickers for its customers. He submitted that the petitioner undertook various other jobs on behalf of its customers, like advertising and sale promotion activities through medias, preparation and screening of films/cinema slides, outdoor publicity through hoardings, negotiations regarding fixation of rent etc. on behalf of its customers, and also undertook sponsorship, programme etc. Mr. Gupta, thus, submitted that from the terms of the contract it could be clear that the designing and printing of posters, stickers etc. by the petitioners for its customers from raw materials procured by the petitioner, was a distinct job separate from display, advertising etc. He submitted that the assessment order, as modified by the appellate authority's order and confirmed by the Board and the learned Tribunal, only treated the transaction relating to posters, stickers etc. , as sale of goods, and the other jobs undertaken by the petitioner for its customers, as not taxable. He submitted that the assessment order, as modified by the appellate authority's order and confirmed by the Board and the learned Tribunal, only treated the transaction relating to posters, stickers etc. , as sale of goods, and the other jobs undertaken by the petitioner for its customers, as not taxable. He, thus, submitted that this Court ought not to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. ( 16 ) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned advocates. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil nadu v. Anandam Viswanathan (supra), cited by Mrs. Seba Roy, learned advocate for the petitioner, to our mind, is relevant in the facts of our case. In the said decision, the Supreme Court observed at pg. 14, ". . . . . . . . . . . . . The Court has to find out the primary object of the transaction and the intention of the parties. . . . . . . . . . . " (Emphasis supplied by us ). ( 17 ) IN the aforesaid Judgment, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court rendered in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Guntur Tobaccos Ltd. , reported in (1965) 16 Sales Tax Cases 240, has also been referred to. While referring to the said Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Anandam Viswanathan (supra) observed at pg. 6 as follows: ". . . . . . . . . laid down that a contract for work in the execution of which goods are used may take one of three forms. The contract may be for work to be, done for remuneration and for supply of materials used in the execution of the works for a price; it may be a contract for work in which the use of materials is accessory or incidental to the execution of the work; or it may be a contract for work and use or supply of materials, though not accessory to the execution of the contract, is voluntary or gratuitous. In the last class there is no sale because thought property passed it did not pass for a price. In the last class there is no sale because thought property passed it did not pass for a price. Whether a contract is of the first or the second class must depend upon the circumstances; if it is of the first, it is a composite contract for work and sale of goods; where it is of the second category, it is a contract for execution of work not involving sale of goods. . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 18 ) IT is, therefore, the nature of the contract and the transaction involved which is required to be looked into in order to determine whether there was a sale in respect of supply of posters and stickers by the petitioner to their customer which would bring the transaction within the purview of Sales Tax. This is possible only when the intention of the parties to the contract is found out. 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 have sold the materials. Whether or not and which part of the job-work relates to that, depends on the nature of the transaction. ( 19 ) IT is the admitted position in the instant case that the petitioner's business is that of advertising, marketing and promotion agency which they execute on behalf of their customers, being different manufacturers, with a view to ensure promotion of sales of their manufactured products in the market by means of advertising through various advertising medias like press, magazines, hoardings, banners, etc. and by designing and printing bills, stickers etc. upon receipt of the actual charges therefore from their customers in addition to a commission of 5% on such charges. With regard to the petitioner's supply of posters and stickers to their customers in relation to the contract that they entered into with them in usual course of their business, reference to some of the relevant clauses of their contract with Bagnan Tobacco (annexed to the writ petition), may be useful for the purpose of adjudication of the instant matter: "2. We will undertake to arrange for designing and printing of posters, tin tablets. We will undertake to arrange for designing and printing of posters, tin tablets. Hand bills, stickers, key-chains and all such like items which you may require from time to time. We will also procure materials which are required for the above items at most favourable terms. 4. We will also undertake as per your instructions from time to time outdoor publicity through hoardings, banners, retailer boards, wall paintings etc. all preparations, negotiations, fixation of rentals, payment of taxes if any, in the, in this connection will also be undertaken by us on your behalf. 9. You will pay us the actual charges for different services to be rendered by us to you and in addition thereto a commission at the rate of 5% per cent on such charges. " ( 20 ) THE entire contract appears as annexure P-2 at page 37 of the writ petition. From a plain reading of the contract it appears to us that the said contract is nothing but a composite contract for work or service. In fact, the contract clearly indicates, at the very outset, that the job of the petitioner was that of being the advertising, marketing and promotion agent of Bagnan Tobacco. If one reads the contract as a whole, one does not find any clause which could indicate that there was an intention of the petitioner to sell posters and stickers simpliciter to their customer. On the contrary, the supply of posters and stickers can be said to be intrinsically and inextricably linked to the contract, which the petitioner company was supposed to execute as the advertising, marketing and promotion agent of Bagnan Tobacco. In fact, the petitioner as the advertising, marketing and promotion agent of Bagnan tobacco, could not have possibly sold the posters and stickers to the said Bagnan Tobacco in isolation, if one takes into account the total work they were to perform in terms of the contract. Moreover, the posters and stickers, by themselves, could not have any commercial value, since the same could be used by means of display for advertisement purposes only, upon being supplied by the petitioner to their customer. Moreover, the posters and stickers, by themselves, could not have any commercial value, since the same could be used by means of display for advertisement purposes only, upon being supplied by the petitioner to their customer. ( 21 ) HAVING regard to the above and in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are of the opinion that the supply of posters and stickers by the petitioner to their customer could not be termed as "sale of goods" and we hold the transaction as a composite part of a "works contract" and thus not liable to be subjected to sales tax, for the relevant assessment period, by the authorities. ( 22 ) THE writ petition thus succeeds. The impugned Judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 6th July, 2001 is hereby set-aside. The demand of tax, as modified by the appellate authority, consequently stands quashed. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Writ petition succeeds.