2012 (10) TMI 262 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the exposed photographic film rolls and negatives are goods or not Held that - Dominant intention of the contract is required to be considered as also the marketability of the goods - They have no utility and are not marketable - As such, they are not goods - Consequently, a contract for processing exposed photographic film rolls and negatives is not a works contract as defined in Section 2(38) of the Act. To contend that Rainbow Colour Lab 2000 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA was completely overruled is not correct

Issues:
1. Determination of whether exposed photographic film rolls and negatives qualify as "goods" under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993.
2. Analysis of whether the transactions between the appellants and their customers constitute works contracts liable to sales tax.
3. Examination of whether the utilization of chemicals in developing and processing photographic film rolls amounts to a sale of goods.
4. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 in light of the transactions in question.
5. Application of legal principles regarding marketability of goods and the definition of "sale" under the Act.

Issue 1:
The court deliberated on whether exposed photographic film rolls and negatives could be classified as "goods" under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. The judgment emphasized the necessity for items to have utility and marketability to qualify as goods, citing legal precedents such as Rainbow Colour Lab and BSNL. It concluded that exposed photographic film rolls and negatives do not meet the criteria of goods as they lack utility and marketability, thereby excluding them from the purview of a works contract.

Issue 2:
The court analyzed whether the transactions conducted by the appellants with their customers constituted works contracts subject to sales tax. It considered the definition of works contract under Section 2(38)(iv) of the Act, emphasizing the requirement for the existence of goods, transfer of property in those goods, and processing or treating them. Since exposed photographic film rolls and negatives were deemed not to be goods, the court ruled that the transactions were service-specific and not works contracts.

Issue 3:
The judgment examined whether the use of chemicals in developing and processing photographic film rolls amounted to a sale of goods under the Act. By referencing Section 2(33) of the Act, which defines "sale," the court highlighted the necessity for the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract. As the chemicals were not used in a works contract due to the absence of goods, the court dismissed the argument for taxing the sale of chemicals.

Issue 4:
The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, particularly Sections 7, 8, and Schedule VI, to determine the tax liability in the context of the transactions in question. It emphasized that for processing goods, the goods themselves must exist, which led to the conclusion that the provisions did not apply in the case of exposed photographic film rolls and negatives due to their non-classification as goods.

Issue 5:
The judgment discussed legal principles concerning the marketability of goods and the definition of "sale" under the Act. It referenced legal precedents and the necessity for goods to possess utility and marketability to qualify as goods. The court highlighted the distinction between service contracts and works contracts, emphasizing that the transactions involving exposed photographic film rolls and negatives were service-specific and not subject to sales tax as per the Act.

In conclusion, the court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, and ruled in favor of the appellants.

← Previous Next →