1957 (2) TMI 52 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Liability of the petitioner to pay sales tax on imported photographic goods and materials used in business activities as a photographer.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute over the liability of the petitioner to pay sales tax on photographic goods and materials imported and used in business activities as a photographer. The petitioner contended that no sales tax should be levied on the materials used in taking photographs for customers. However, the taxing authority assessed the petitioner for sales tax on the imported photographic materials utilized in the business. The Commissioner of Sales Tax upheld the assessment, leading to the case being brought before the High Court for opinion. The primary question was whether photographic materials consumed in the process of manufacturing photographic work could be treated as a sale under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act.

The petitioner's counsel argued on two grounds. Firstly, it was contended that the materials used in photography were not sold to customers but were part of the service provided. Secondly, it was argued that the photographer's business was more of a service nature than a sale, likening it to a contract for work and labor rather than a sale transaction. The court examined the process of photography, highlighting the various stages involved, including taking the photograph, developing, printing, and mounting. It was established that photography involves the production of goods for sale, making the photographer a manufacturer under the Act.

The court referred to previous decisions to support the classification of photography as the manufacture of goods. It was emphasized that when photographs are sold to customers, there is an inherent sale of the materials used in their production. The court rejected the argument that the contract for photography was solely for work and labor, emphasizing that the core of the contract was the supply of finished goods, i.e., photographs. The court also cited a relevant Australian case to support the classification of photographs as manufactured goods rather than artistic services.

In conclusion, the court answered both parts of the question posed by the Commissioner in the affirmative, affirming that the petitioner was liable to pay sales tax on the photographic materials used in the production of photographs. The judgment was delivered by the judges Dixit and Samvatsar, with Samvatsar concurring with the decision. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the reference.