Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (10) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eks to challenge a letter dated 9th July, 2001, issued by the Ministry of Finance as being arbitrary and discriminatory being in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and also violative of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by the Act 14 of 2001. The Petitioner also prays for an Order directing the Respondent to bifurcate the gross receipts of processing of photographs into the portion attributable to goods and that attributable to services. The Petitioner claims that the Respondents must tax only that portion of the receipts, which is attributable to the services rendered. 2.Briefly stated the facts are that the Petitioner is the owner of one Ajantha Colour Lab, Kottakkal, Malappuram, Kerala. The Petitioner is running t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nugopal submits that on 8th January, 2003 when this Court dismissed SLP (CC) No. 6811/02 (Kerala Colour Lab Association's SLP), this Court bifurcated this Writ Petition and listed it in the next week. He submits that thereafter this Court has issued Rule in this Writ Petition on 17th January, 2003. He submits that therefore this Court has already recognized the fact that this Writ Petition is not covered by the dismissal of Kerala Colour Labs Association's SLP. 5.A reading of the averments made by the Petitioner, in the synopsis, in the Writ Petition and in I.A. No. 4 filed by him, makes it clear that the Petitioner was initially claiming that the issues in this Petition and in the pending SLP of Kerala Colour Labs Association were .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e photography, laser photography, aerial photography and fluorescent photography. Section 65(48) defines Photography studio or agency as including any professional photographer or a commercial concern engaged in the business of rendering service relating to photography. Section 65(72)(zb) defines Taxable service in relation to photography studio or agency as any service provided to a customer, by a photography studio or agency in relation to photography, in any manner. Section 66 is the charging Section. Sub-section (5) levies a service tax at the rate of five per cent of the value of the taxable services referred to in clause (zb) of Section 65(72). Section 67 provides that the value of taxable service shall be the gross amount charged by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 000) 2 SCC 385, held that contracts of the type entered into by persons like the Petitioner are nothing else but service contracts pure and simple. It is held that in such contracts there is no element of sale of goods. This Judgment is binding on this Court. In view of this Judgment, the question of directing the Respondent to bifurcate the receipts into an element of goods and the element of service cannot and does not arise. We see no substance in the contention that facts in Rainbow Colour Labs case were different inasmuch as in that case the Court was dealing with a case where photographers take photographs, develop them and then give the photos to the customer. In our view, the ratio of Rainbow Colour Lab's case also applies to ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed in Article 366(29-A) as also of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Builders' Assn. of India v. Union of India [(1989) 2 SCC 645]." He submitted that, in view of these observations, the Judgment in Rainbow Colour Lab case must be deemed to have been overruled and/or in any event it is required to be reconsidered by a Larger Bench. 13.We are unable to accept this submission. In Associated Cement Companies' case, the question was whether or not custom duty could be levied on drawings, designs, diskettes, manuals etc. The argument there was that these were intangible properties and not goods as defined in Section 2(22) of the Customs Act. The question of levy of service tax did not arise in that case. The observations .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates