Judgment :- D. MURUGESAN The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Joint Commissioner-III (Suo Motu revision) of Commercial Taxes, Chennai-5 in reference No.N2/83342/96 SMR No.670/97 dated 19.04.1999. 2. The appellant herein is doing the business of printing work on specific orders placed by various customers. It secured job work orders from Indian Bank for printing of current account challans, visiting cards, daily summary, loose printed books, O.B.C. pads etc. Similarly it entertained job work from M/s Rajanarayanan Textiles Limited, Southern Textiles Limited, Card Well Spinning Mills Private Limited for printing of maintenance books, invoice books, letter pads, payment vouchers and dividend warrants etc. For the purpose of printing, for the assessment year 1991-1992, the appellant purchased raw materials from outside and utilised the same for printing the above items in order to supply its customers. Hence, the appellant claimed that it is only a works contract and not a sale. That was rejected by the assessing officer. However, on appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the said finding was reversed and consequently it was held that the job work undertaken by the appellant for printing the above items amounted to "works contract" and not "sale of goods" and therefore, the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of tax exemption. This order was suo motu revised in terms of Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act by the Joint Commissioner, who confirmed the order of assessing officer. Hence, the present appeal. 3. We have heard Mr.S.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Haja Naziruddin, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent/revenue. 4. According to Mr.S.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the appellant, the raw materials for executing the works contract were purchased from outside and those materials suffered tax and therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF TAMIL NADU V. ANANDAM VISWANATHAN (1989) 73 STC 1 and the recent decision of Division Bench of this Court in STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. PREMIER LITHO WORKS AND ANOTHER (2009) 26 VST 205, the order of the Joint Commissioner has to be interfered with. 5. PREMIER LITHO WORKS AND ANOTHER (2009) 26 VST 205, the order of the Joint Commissioner has to be interfered with. 5. Mr.Haja Naziruddin, learned Special Government Pleader, on the other hand, would submit that the entry as to the printed materials came into force even in the year 1990 and in terms of Article 29-A of the Constitution of India, even printed materials are liable to be taxed and they cannot be treated as works contract. Hence, the order of the Joint Commissioner requires no interference. 6. The question as to whether on the given facts and circumstances of the case, the printing materials would amount to works contract or sale of goods is not res integra. As has been rightly referred to by Mr.S.Ramanathan, the Apex Court in STATE OF TAMIL NADU V. ANANDAM VISWANATHAN (1989) 73 STC 1, held that even the printed materials supplied to a particular customer could be construed as works contract. That judgment was in fact referred by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. PREMIER LITHO WORKS AND ANOTHER (2009) 26 VST 205. In our considered opinion, in matters like this, two questions may arise. Firstly, whether the raw materials purchased by the dealer had already suffered tax and if those raw materials are used to print the materials on specific orders from the specified customers and those printed materials are supplied to the customer concerned, whether it would amount to "works contract" or "sale". Incidentally a question may also arise as to whether those materials could be sold in open market. Keeping the above principle in mind, if we consider the facts of this case, it is not in dispute that the raw materials were used for printing the challans on a specific orders from the customers viz., Indian Bank and some of the textile mills for printing challans etc., and these printed materials cannot be sold in open market and they could only be supplied to the customers, who placed orders. Secondly, those raw materials had already suffered tax. In these circumstances, both the judgments relied upon by the appellant, which we have referred to above, squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 7. Secondly, those raw materials had already suffered tax. In these circumstances, both the judgments relied upon by the appellant, which we have referred to above, squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 7. In this context, we may also refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in STATE OF TAMIL NADU V. GUNASUNDARI MODERN ART PRINTERS (1995) 97 STC 489 , wherein the Division Bench followed the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF TAMIL NADU V. ANANDAM VISWANATHAN (1989) 73 STC 1 referred supra, in which similar question of printing certain accounting books by the assessee for the Indian Bank was held to be works contract. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner is set aside and the appeal is allowed. No costs.