JUDGMENT B. N. MAHAPATRA, J. - This sales tax revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner - dealer under section 24 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, "the OST Act") raising the following question of law : "Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law while disposing of the appeal that the transaction of photo-identity card is a transaction in the nature of sale ?" Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts and circumstances giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner in the present revision petition is a Government of Orissa undertaking. It carries on business in agricultural implements, iron and steel goods, coal, wax plastic goods, hand-pump, electric motor, machineries, steel furniture, electric pump-set, photographic materials, paints, etc., on wholesale basis. It has also undertaken preparation of photo-identity cards for voters as per the orders of the Chief Electoral Officer of Home Department, Government of Orissa (hereinafter referred to as, "the CEO"). The petitioner received Rs. 12.70 per photo-identity card. During the year under consideration, it received Rs. 6,56,06,424 for supply of photo identity cards. This amount has been shown as gross turnover by the petitioner for supply of such photo identity cards. Out of the said total receipt, the petitioner claimed expenditure amounting to Rs. 6,13,12,696 towards labour and service charges. The petitioner did not pay any tax on supply of photo identity card on the ground that the work undertaken by it was a job contract involving labour and service. The assessing officer rejected such claim of the petitioner holding that the work undertaken by the petitioner as one in the nature of works contracts. Since the details of the expenditure incurred by the petitioner was not filed before the assessing officer, he allowed 30 per cent of the gross turnover towards labour charges and treated the balance as taxable turnover and levied four per cent tax thereon. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner went in appeal before the first appellate authority. In course of hearing of first appeal, the first appellate authority issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the assessment for the impugned year would not be enhanced treating the supply of photo identity card as "sale" and the same should not be taxed at the rate of 12 per cent. In course of hearing of first appeal, the first appellate authority issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the assessment for the impugned year would not be enhanced treating the supply of photo identity card as "sale" and the same should not be taxed at the rate of 12 per cent. The petitioner filed reply to the said show-cause notice. Rejecting the petitioner's plea that the work undertaken by it was job for preparation of photo-identity card for voters, the learned first appellate authority held the said transaction to be sale relying on the judgment of the apex court in Chandra Bhan Gosani v. State of Orissa [1963] 14 STC 766 (SC). Thereafter, the matter was carried to the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal upheld the view taken by the first appellate authority observing that the intention of the party in making agreement/order was for preparation and delivery of photo identity cards of particular specification which amounts to contract for transfer of chattel qua chattel. Mr. Choudhury S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, relying upon various provisions of the supply order placed by the CEO with petitioner vehemently argued that the supply of photo-identity cards to the Election Commission was a job contract. He further submitted that photo-identity cards prepared by the petitioner and supplied to CEO are not commercial commodities and cannot be sold like other marketable commodity to any other person. He claimed that out of the total payment of Rs. 6,56,06,424 received against supply of photo-identity cards, the petitioner spent Rs. 6,13,12,696 towards labour charges. Mr. Mishra, further submitted that the nature of work undertaken by the petitioner was purely of labour and skill and no tax is payable on such transaction. The photo-identity cards of the voters have not been supplied to CEO as chattel qua chattel. The job of preparation of photo-identity cards involves technical skill like entering voters' data from the electoral rolls into computer and the data so entered is to be transferred and stored in magnetic media in a manner so that the data can be utilized at a subsequent date for preparation of photo-identity card. The job of preparation of photo-identity cards involves technical skill like entering voters' data from the electoral rolls into computer and the data so entered is to be transferred and stored in magnetic media in a manner so that the data can be utilized at a subsequent date for preparation of photo-identity card. Therefore, the petitioner was to take video photograph of each voter as per the electoral rolls at their respective polling booth or at a suitable place nearby and prepare photo-identity cards using the data stored in the magnetic media. The photo-identity cards so prepared are delivered to the CEO only. The use of materials in photo-identity card was incidental and insignificant and tax has been paid on such goods at the time of purchase. The work undertaken by the petitioner was a special kind of job entrusted for confidence reposed and for the delicate nature of the job performed, the work in connection with the aforesaid order was predominant in the transaction and not the value of the materials which were used in executing the job. The transaction relating to supply of photo-identity card cannot constitute the works contract or sale and, therefore, no tax is leviable on such transaction. Per contra, strongly opposing to the submissions of the petitioner, Mr. R. P. Kar, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue strenuously argued that after analyzing the terms and conditions of the order placed by the CEO, the learned Tribunal had correctly come to the conclusion that the transaction undertaken by the petitioner is in the nature of sale for cash or deferred payment. Mr. Kar relied upon the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Karya Palak Engineer, C.P.W.D. v. Rajasthan Taxation Board, Ajmer [2004] 136 STC 641 (SC), Govindrao v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1982 SC 1201 , Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Ashok Harikuni [2000] 8 SCC 61 and Chandra Bhan Gosani v. State of Orissa [1963] 14 STC 766 (SC). The only controversy involved in the present case is whether supply of photo-identity cards by the petitioner to the CEO amounts to sale or a contract for work or service. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to some of the decisions of the honourable Supreme Court. The only controversy involved in the present case is whether supply of photo-identity cards by the petitioner to the CEO amounts to sale or a contract for work or service. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to some of the decisions of the honourable Supreme Court. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. [1972] 29 STC 474 (SC), the honourable Supreme Court held as follows : "Thus, in considering whether a transaction falls within the purview of sales tax, it becomes necessary at the threshold to determine the nature of the contract involved in such a transaction for the purpose of ascertaining whether it constitutes a contract of sale or a contract of work or service. If it is of the latter kind it obviously would not attract the tax. From the decisions earlier cited it clearly emerges that such determination depends in each case upon its facts and circumstances. Mere passing of property in an article or commodity during the course of the performance of the transaction in question does not render it a transaction of sale. For, even in a contract purely of work or service, it is possible that articles may have to be used by the person executing the work and property in such articles or materials may pass to the other party. That would not necessarily convert the contract into one of sale of those materials. In every case the court would have to find out what was the primary object of the transaction and the intention of the parties while entering into it. It may in some cases be that even while entering into a contract of work or even service, parties might enter into separate agreements, one of work and service and the other of sale and purchase of materials to be used in the course of executing the work or performing the service. But, then in such cases the transaction would not be one and indivisible, but would fall into two separate agreements, one of work or service and the other of sale." The honourable Supreme Court in the Assistant Sales Tax Officer v. B. C. Kame [1977] 39 STC 237 (SC), held as follows : "The question as to whether a contract is a contract of work and labour or a contract for sale is not one free from difficulty. The reason for that is that in borderline cases the distinction between the two types of contract is very fine. This is particularly so when the contract is a composite one involving both a contract of work and labour and a contract of sale. Nevertheless, the distinction between the two rests on a clear principle. A contract of sale is one whose main object is the transfer of property in, and the delivery of the possession of, a chattel as a chattel to the buyer. Where the principal object of work undertaken by the payee of the price is not the transfer of a chattel qua chattel, the contract is one of work and labour. The test is whether or not the work and labour bestowed end in anything that can properly become the subject of sale; neither the ownership of materials, nor the value of the skill and labour as compared with the value of the materials, is conclusive, although such matters may be taken into consideration in determining, in the circumstances of a particular case, whether the contract is in substance one for work and labour or one for the sale of a chattel. ..." The honourable apex court further held as follows : "... When a photographer like the respondent undertakes to take photograph, develops the negative or do other photographic work and thereafter supply the print 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 honourable Supreme Court in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [1984] 55 STC 314, held as follows : "... Mere passing of property in an article or commodity during the course of performance of the transaction in question does not render the transaction to be a transaction of sale. Even in a contract purely of work or service, it is possible that articles may have to be used by the person executing the work, and property in such articles or materials may pass to the other party. That would not necessarily convert the contract into one of sale of those materials. In every case, the court would have to find out what was the primary object of the transaction and the intention of the parties while entering into it. That would not necessarily convert the contract into one of sale of those materials. In every case, the court would have to find out what was the primary object of the transaction and the intention of the parties while entering into it. It may in some cases be that even while entering into the contract of work or even service, parties might enter into separate agreements, one of work and service and the other of sale and purchase of materials to be used in the course of executing the work or performing the service. But, then in such cases the transaction would not be one and indivisible, but would fall into two separate agreements, one of work or service and the other of sale. ..." In the said case, the honourable apex court further held that a contract for sale of goods must be distinguished from a contract for work and labour. The distinction is often a fine one. A contract of sale is a contract whose main object is the transfer of the property in, and the delivery of the possession of, a chattel as a chattel to the buyer. Where, however the main object of work undertaken by the payee of the price was not the transfer of chattel qua chattel, the contract is one of work and labour. The honourable Supreme Court in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1984] 55 STC 327, held as Mows : "As emphasized by this court, there is no rigid or inflexible rule applicable alike to all transactions which can indicate distinction between a contract for sale and a contract for work and labour. But the tests indicated in the several decisions of the court merely focused on one or the other aspect of the transaction and afforded some guidance in determining the question, but basically and primarily, whether a particular contract was one of sale or for work and labour depended upon the main object of the parties in the circumstances of the transactions. In a contract for sale, the main object of the parties is to transfer property in and delivery of possession of a chattel as a chattel to the buyer. ..." In the said case, the honourable apex court further held as follows : "... In a contract for sale, the main object of the parties is to transfer property in and delivery of possession of a chattel as a chattel to the buyer. ..." In the said case, the honourable apex court further held as follows : "... As had been emphasized by this court, that 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 or rendering service no property in the thing produced as a whole notwithstanding that a part or even the whole of materials used by him may have been his property. In the case of a contract for sale, the thing produced as whole has individual existence as the sole property of the party who produced it some time before delivery and the property therein passes only under the contract relating thereto to the other party for price. ..." The honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Anandam Viswanathan [1989] 73 STC 1, while considering whether the order supplying question paper for a price by college, university will constitute a sale of the printed papers and such consideration received will be exigible to sales tax, came to the following conclusion : "In our opinion, in each case the nature of the contract and the transaction must be found out. And this is possible only when the intention of the parties 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 sell the materials. Whether or not and which part of the job-work relates to that depends, as mentioned hereinbefore, on the nature of the transaction. ..." In the said case, the honourable Supreme Court further held as follows : "In our opinion, the contract in this case is one, having regard to the nature of the job to be done and the confidence reposed, for work to be done for remuneration and supply of paper was just incidental. ..." In the said case, the honourable Supreme Court further held as follows : "In our opinion, the contract in this case is one, having regard to the nature of the job to be done and the confidence reposed, for work to be done for remuneration and supply of paper was just incidental. Hence, the entire price for the printed question papers would have been entitled to be excluded from the taxable turnover, ..." Now, in view of the above legal propositions, it becomes necessary to refer to some of the relevant provisions of the order placed by the CEO with the petitioner for supply of photo-identity cards which are as follows : "Orders are placed with the Orissa Small Industries Corporation, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Corporation') to render the department the job of preparation of photo-identity cards for voters in the parliamentary constituencies mentioned in the Schedule as per the terms and conditions prescribed below : Part (2) relates to job specifications which reads as follows : 2(i) The job shall consist of taking the video photographs of the voters of their respective polling booths. The electors whose names are mentioned on the electoral roll will be called at the concerned polling stations at a suitable place nearby for taking their photographs as directed by the Election Commission of India. Such centre for taking photographs will have to be visited twice to give adequate opportunity to the elector to be photographed as directed by the Election Commission of India. The Corporation will have to make arrangements for taking the photographs of each elector and preparing the photo identify card using data from the electoral rolls already entered in the computer or magnetic media and the pictures as taken. 2(ii) The photo identity card should conform to the following specifications : (i) A frontal photograph of voters 2.5 Cms. (horizontal) x 3 Cms. (vertical) in size with 10 per cent permissible variations shall be printed on the front side of the card. (ii) A unique code number will have to be assigned to each elector in the manner prescribed by the Election Commission. The Code number for the electors will have to be generated by the computer on the basis of the electoral roll and will have to be printed on the identity card at the appropriate place. (iii) The photo-identity card shall be of 7 Cms. The Code number for the electors will have to be generated by the computer on the basis of the electoral roll and will have to be printed on the identity card at the appropriate place. (iii) The photo-identity card shall be of 7 Cms. (horizontal) x 9 Cms. (vertical) with variations up to 10 per cent permitted. The thickness of the paper used shall not be less than 165 GSM. The photograph and printing on the card shall be black against white background. Name and other particulars of elector has to be printed both in English and in Oriya on the front and reverse of the card in the manner prescribed by the Election Commission of India. (iv) The card will be laminated, sealed and made water-proof and tamper proof. The thickness of the laminating pouch shall not be less than 125 microns. The edges should be so fussed that the card cannot be opened without destroying it. (v) A hologram which will be replica of the official logo of the Government of Orissa should be affixed in the card in such a way that the hologram cannot be removed or peeled off without destroying the card and the lamination. The hologram should be a circle with 2 Cms. diameter and affixed at the centre of the front side of the card. 2(iii) Each identity card should be prepared in duplicate. The duplicate card need not be laminated individually, but number of miniature identity cards or photo-reduced identity cards should be collectively pouch-laminated; one A4-size sheet-card should contain 100 miniature cards 50 card on each side. Para - 4 relates to payment terms. Para 4-3 reads as follows : Payment shall be made on a running basis against deliveries made of the computed photo identity cards in duplicate. The mobilization advance will be adjusted from the running bills by deducting 50 per cent of the payment due until full recovery of the advance outstanding." In the case at hand, the CEO had placed order with the appellant to do the job of preparation of photo identity cards of voters. The very wording "render for this Department the job of preparation of photo identity card for voters" appearing in first paragraph of the order reveals the intention of parries which envisages that it is a job-work. The very wording "render for this Department the job of preparation of photo identity card for voters" appearing in first paragraph of the order reveals the intention of parries which envisages that it is a job-work. The job is to be done by doing certain specified nature of work as specified in paragraph 2 of the letter of the CEO. The nature of the job involves highly skilled labour. The job of preparation of photo-identity card involves skill like entering voters' data from the electoral rolls into computers and the data so entered is to be transferred and stored in magnetic media in a manner so that the data can be utilized at a subsequent date for preparation of photo-identity card. For this purpose the petitioner is to take video photograph of each voter as per electoral rolls at their respective polling booth or at a suitable place nearby and prepare photo-identity cards using the data stored in the magnetic media. The photo identity cards so prepared were delivered to the CEO but none else. The photo-identity cards supplied to the CEO are not commercial commodities. The same cannot be sold to any other person. The photo identity cards, which are produced by the petitioner, have no utility or value to any other person than the CEO who paid for the service rendered by the petitioner. The material purchased and utilized in preparation of photo-identity cards is very negligible and incidental. Another important aspect is that the very moment the floppies are used for storing the matter and the paper, pouches, holograms are used for preparation of identity cards, the same cannot be used or sold by the petitioner to any other person, save and except, the CEO. As such, it was a special kind of job and delicate in nature which is predominant in the transaction and not the value of the materials which are used in executing the job. Photo-identity cards prepared for voters had no existence as the sole property of the petitioner before its delivery to the CEO even though materials like floppies, pouches, holograms and papers were used by the petitioner in preparation of photo-identity cards. Thus, there is no element of sale or transfer of property in the goods involved in the present case. The photo-identity cards of voters are not the commodities saleable in open market. Thus, there is no element of sale or transfer of property in the goods involved in the present case. The photo-identity cards of voters are not the commodities saleable in open market. It fetches no commercial value in the open market. Had it been photographs of gods, goddesses, national leaders, popular film stars or cricketers, which are tradable in open market, it would have been exigible to tax, if not otherwise exempted from payment of tax. Hence, supply of photo-identity cards to CEO cannot be held as sale. It is a contract for labour and service. In Karya Palak Engineer's case [2004] 136 STC 641 (SC) the question before the honourable apex court was whether a supply of material by the Union of India to its contractor under agreement of works contract would amount to a sale so as to attract the provisions of the Sales Tax Act. The honourable apex court held that the Union of India was not exempted under article 285 of the Constitution from the levy of an indirect tax, viz., sales tax. The transaction attracted the application of the provisions of section 2(14) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. Thus this case is of no help to the Revenue. Similarly, the decisions of the honourable Supreme Court in Govindrao's case AIR 1982 SC 1201 and in Agricultural Produce Market Committee's case [2000] 8 SCC 61 are also of no help to the petitioner. In the former case, it is held that "sovereignty" means "supremacy in respect of power, dominion of rank; supreme dominion authority or rule". "Sovereignty" is the right to govern. Thus, sovereignty, according to its normal legal connotation, is the supreme power which governs the body politic, or society which constitutes the State, and this power is independent of the particular form of Government, whether monarchial, autocratic or democratic. In the latter case it was held that the question whether a particular power relates to sovereign function depends on the nature of the power and the manner of its exercise. The facts of the case in Chandra Bhan Gosani's case [1963] 14 STC 766 (SC) are completely different from the facts of the case at hand. In the latter case it was held that the question whether a particular power relates to sovereign function depends on the nature of the power and the manner of its exercise. The facts of the case in Chandra Bhan Gosani's case [1963] 14 STC 766 (SC) are completely different from the facts of the case at hand. In the said case the appellant manufacturing and supplying large quantities of bricks to a company under a contract was assessed to sales tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, on the basis that these supplies were sales. There was a clause in the contract providing that "land will be given free" by the company. The appellant contended that the contract was only for labour or for work done and material found, and that there was really no sale of any goods on which the tax could be levied. In the said case, the honourable apex court held as follows : "(1) that under the contract there was a transfer of property in the earth to the appellant by the company; (2) that although the contract did not use the word 'sale' there was also a transfer of property in the bricks from the appellant to the company for consideration and, therefore, there was a sale liable to sales tax; (3) the fact that under the contract the bricks had to be manufactured according to certain specifications, and, therefore, the appellant had to bestow a certain amount of skill and labour in the manufacture of the bricks did not affect the question. The essence of the contract was the delivery of the bricks and it was a contract for the transfer of chattels qua chattels." Thus, the principle decided in the said case has no application to the case at hand. In view of the above, supply of photo-identity cards by the petitioner to the CEO is not exigible to sales tax. In the result, the question referred to above is answered in the negative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the petitioner - dealer. DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, C.J. - I agree.