9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (1) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omers as they were works contracts and not sales and, that sales tax was leviable only on sales of prints or copies of such prints by the respondents to their customers. There was produced before the authorities and the Tribunal a contract entered into between the respondents and one of their customers, Messrs. Aiyars Advertising and Marketing, recorded in a letter dated 20th July, 1961, from the respondents to their said customers as a specimen of the contracts which the respondents entered into with their customers for the production of such films and the supply of prints and copies thereof to their customers. The said specimen contract was for production of two 100-feet advertisement films in colour, advertising a hairdressing called "Brylcream". Under the said contract the total cost provided was Rs. 66,704, which was made up of six specified items, namely, production cost, puppet sequence, language versions, 327 prints, excise duty and sales tax. The dispute between the parties is with respect to the said items of production cost and for making language versions of the film. Arising out of the judgment delivered by the Tribunal, at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of goods. These authorities were a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kanpur Journals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.[1956] 7 S.T.C. 661.; a decision of the Nagpur Bench of this High Court in Saraswati Printing Press v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Eastern Division, Nagpur [1959] 10 S.T.C. 286. ; a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Krishna Power Press, Vizianagaram[1960] 11 S.T.C. 498.; and another decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S.R.P. Works and Ruby Press v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1972] 30 S.T.C. 195. We, however, do not see any necessity of referring to these cases in detail because to compare a film producer with a printer is according to us inapposite. A proper analogy would be that of a photographer. So far as the case of a photographer is concerned, we have the judgment of a Division Bench of our own High Court in Camera House, Bombay v. State of Maharashtra[1970] 25 S.T.C. 354. That was also a reference under section 61(1) of the said Act. In that case one of the questions which the High Court had to consider was whether, when a person went to a photographer to have his photograph taken and to receive from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , their work was mechanical. Two scripts in respect of the specimen contract, referred to above, have been produced on the record. The first script contains 11 scenes. The first column of the script describes the scenes, while the second column sets out the dialogue or the commentary which is to go with each scene. The second script shows that that particular film was to be in 15 scenes and there again what the commentator has to say or the dialogue between the artists taking part in the film is set out against each scene in the second column. A film is not just its plot or the sequence of scenes. A film is the manner in which the story is presented and the bald story is very often of very little significance. In fact, baldly stated, the plot or theme of even some of the greatest masterpieces of literature would sound banal. It is the treatment which the plot receives at the hand of the poet or the author which makes a masterpiece. Similarly, in the case of a film-even an advertisement film-it is the treatment which the film receives at the hands of the producer and the director, the manner in which the artists taking part play their roles, the skill which the technicians concerned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be essential for defendant No. 1 to gather together with intent to complete production of the film certain persons like artists, cameramen, director and various other assistants, who will all assist in photographing and shooting into a film the story intended to be filmed and exhibited. The various persons so gathered together will have to expend labour on the raw stock of the film, so that the dupe negatives and positives, which may be ultimately filmed, might be reproduced on cinema screen as a complete article. It is also permissible for me to note that from the film as produced several diverse prints will have to be made and ultimately distributed by defendant No. 1 as producer of the film, so that the film may be sold by defendant No. 1 or distributed by it through diverse distributors at diverse places. I have mentioned the above usual activities of a film producer only to show that the ultimate production that is made is not a work of art as such but is the result of cumulative labour of diverse persons gathered together by a producer on the raw stock of a film, which again has to be put in the market in the manner mentioned by me above." In that case the learned judge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
