QksVksxzkQh Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax cuke oDlZ · · 2014-08-07professional photographer or a commercial concern engaged in the business of ... relating to Shops and Establishments

NATIONAL TAX NEWS AND VIEWSNATIONAL TAX NEWS AND VIEWSNATIONAL TAX NEWS AND VIEWSNATIONAL TAX NEWS AND VIEWS

NTNNTNNTNNTN A FORTNIGHTLY VAT/GST LAW REPORTER

First Journal in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Providing online Services

www.ntnonline.net or www.upvatonline.com

©: National Law Book Publications, B-2, Modern Plaza Building

Ambedkar Road, Ghaziabad -201001-U.P. Phone Nos. (0120) 4128197,

2793852,

Email : [email protected] or [email protected]

QksVksxzkQh Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax cuke oDlZ dkWUVªSDV&Hkzakfr;kW ,oa oLrqfLFkfr1

¼jkds'k dqekj ;kno½ fMIVh dfe'uj] okf.kT; dj] vkxjk2

QksVksxzkQh Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax dk dk;Z oDlZ dkWUVªSDV ds vUrxZr vkrk gS ;k ugh& bl fo"k; ij erSD; dk vHkko gS A QksVksxzkQh dh Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVx dk dk;Z djus okys O;kikfj;ksa }kjk fofHkUu U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa dk m)j.k nsrs gq, eq[; :i ls bl ckr ij cy fn;k tkrk gS fd QksVksxzkQh Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax ds dk;Z esa lfoZl dk rRo MkfeusUV uspj dk gksrk gS A vr% mDr dk;Z oDlZ dkWUVªSDV dh Js.kh esa u vkdj lfoZl dkUVSªDV dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS vkSj rn~uqlkj ml ij [email protected]; dj dh dksbZ ns;rk vkdf"kZr ugh gksrh gS A tcfd okf.kT; dj foHkkx ds dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkfj;ksa ds vuqlkj iz'uxr dk;Z oDlZ dkWUVªSDV ds vUrxZr vkrk gS A vr% mDr dk;Z lafonk ds fu"iknu esa vUrfjr gksus okyh oLrqvksa dh MhEM fcdzh ij rn~uqlkj djns;rk gS A bl izdkj iz'uxr ekeys esa fojks/kkHkklh er gSa A vr% fdlh fuf'pr fu"d"kZ ij igqWpus ls iwoZ fuEufyf[kr fcUnqvksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxk%&

1& lfoZl VSDl cu ke oDlZ dkWUVSªDV A

1 . Editor’s Note: Views expressed in this Article are personal views of the

Author and Editor’s does not necessarly have the same opinion as of the author of this Article. Readers of this Article can send their comments through E-mail on address [email protected] .

2 . Contact info: E-mail:- [email protected] Mobile No. : 09458260254







2793852,


2& QksVksxzkQh Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax dk dk;Z oDlZ dkWUVsªDV ds vUrxZr vkrk gS vFkok ugh \

3& ;fn mDr dk;Z odZ d kWUVªSDV dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS rks f cdzh ewY; D;k gksxk \

4& dk;Z laf onk ds fu"i knu ds QyLo:i izkIr Hkqxrku ij Lohd`r dj dh

Hkk¡fr djns;rk dh fLFkfr A

fcUnq la[;k&1

lfoZl VSDl cu ke oDlZ dkWUVSªDV&

fnukad 16&01&2001 ls QksVksxkzQh lfoZl VSDl dk Hkh fo"k; jgk gS rFkk QksVks ySc ,oa LVwfM;ks ls lfoZl VSDl laxzg djus dk nkf;Ro lsUVªy ,Dlkbt fMikVZes.V dks lkSik x;k gS A Finance Act, 1994 dh /kkjk 65(78) ds vUrxZr QksVks xzkQh dks ifjHkkf"kr fd;k x;k gS rFkk mlds vUrxZr fuEufyf[kr ikWp izdkj dh QksVksxzkQh dks lfEefyr fd;k x;k gS%&

(i) still photography,

(ii) motion picture photography,

(iii) laser photography,

(iv) aerial photography, and

(v) fluorescent photography.

The taxable service, as per section 65(72)(zb) of the Finance Act, 1994, was

any service provided, to a customer, by a photography studio or agency in relation to

photography, in any manner. Photography studio or agency has been defined as "any

professional photographer or a commercial concern engaged in the business of

rendering service relating to photography" vide section 65(48).

The service tax was payable on the gross amount charged from the customer

for the service rendered. However, the cost of unexposed photography films sold to

the customer was excluded. As per notification No. 6/2001-ST dated the 9th July,

2001, service providers who are registered under various States/Municipal laws

relating to Shops and Establishments or any other law of state which is in force for the

time being, for carrying out commercial activity only were liable to service tax.

Individual professional photographers and others providing still photography

service, but who do not have fixed place of business as a shop or office and who were







2793852,


not registered under these enactments, were not be liable to pay service tax. In

essence, service tax is payable by shops and studios, processing and developing labs,

etc. and not by the individual photographers.

bl izdkj izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj lfoZl VSDl dk nkf;Ro ldy Hkqxrku ij gS vkSj ;gh fookn dk ewy dkj.k gS A O;kikfj;ksa }kjk ;g rdZ fn;k tkrk gS fd ftu ekeyksa esa lfoZl VSDl dk nkf;Ro gS] muesa fdlh Hkh izdkj ls [email protected]; dj dk nkf;Ro fof/k vuqdwy ugh gS] D;ksafd ,sls ekeyksa esa lfoZl dk rRo Dominent Nature dk gksrk gS A bl lUnHkZ esa fofHkUu U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk izklafxd gksxk A

ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dh f}lnL;h; ihB }kjk M/s Rainbow Colour

Lab and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2000 NTN (Vo.16) 210

(SC)esa fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fn;k x;k gS%&

"The Photograph has no marketable value. What is expected from the photographer is his service, skill and talent. If any property passes to the customer in the form of photographic paper, it is only incidental to the service contract. No portion of the turnover of a photographer relating to this category of work would be exigible to sales tax."

ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds mDr okn fu.kZ; dks M/s Associated

Cement Companies Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Cusstoms 2002 NTN (Vol. 20) 73 SC

ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dh rhu lnL;h; ihB }kjk fofHkUu U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa dk fo'kn foospu djrs gq, distinguish dj fn;k x;k vkSj fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fn;k x;k%&

"Even if the dominant intention of the contract is rendering of service which will amount to a works contract, after the 46th Amendment, the State would be empowered to levy sales tax on the material used in such contract.

The conclusion arrived at in M/s Rainbow Colour Lab and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2000 NTN (Vo.16) 210 (SC ); 2000 UPTC 193, in our opinion, runs counter to the express provision contained in Article 366 (29A) as also the Constitutional Bench decision in the case of Builders Association of India vs. Union of India (1989) 73 STC 370; 1989 (2) SCC 645"

bl izdkj iz'uxr okn fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk M/s

Rainbow Colour Lab (Supra) ds ekeys esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dks overruled dj fn;k x;k gS A







2793852,


iqu% ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dh f}lnL;h; ihB }kjk C.K. Jidheesh vs.

UOI, 2005, SC: 2005 (71) RLT 505 (S.C.) ds ekeys esa Associated Cement Companies

Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs 2002 ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s fu.kZ; ls vlgefr O;Dr djrs gq, fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fn;k x;k%&

"there appears to be no discrimination since photographic contracts are

service contracts, pure and simple and, therefore, service tax could be levied on the

gross amount.”

ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; dh rhu lnL;h; ihB }kjk Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Ltd (BSNL) vs. Union of India [2006] -TMI - 309 ds ekeys esa M/s Rainbow Colour

Lab rFkk M/s C.K. Jidheesh ds ekeys esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dks distinguish djrs gq, fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fn;k x;k&

“if the nature of transaction involved is composite contract, of service and sale and if

the components of sale element are discernible, then both the components cannot be

re-mixed for the purpose of relevant tax.” The Court has held that service tax and sales

tax operate in two different spheres;. and service tax would be payable only on the

service component and not the whole amount of the consideration.

Further, it held that it is possible for the State to tax the sale element provided

there is a discernible sale and only to the extent relatable to such sale. However,

‘aspect theory’ cannot be applied to enable the value of the services to be included in

the sale of goods or the price of goods in the value of service.

What is 'aspect theory?'

' This question has been stated in Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Association of

India vs. UOI 1989 (3) SCC 634 as "Subjects which in one aspect and for one purpose

fall within the power of a particular legislature may in another aspect and for another

purpose fall within another legislative power. They might be overlapping; but the

overlapping must be in law. The same transaction may involve two or more taxable

events in its different aspects. But the fact that there is overlapping does not detract

from the distinctiveness of the aspects." The Apex Court observed that the Kerala

High court in the Escotel case erred in including the cost of the service in the value of

SIM card by relying on the aspects doctrine. They had categorically answered that the

aspect theory would not apply to enable the value of the services to be included in

the sale of goods or the price of goods in the value of services. The implication of the

above decision for the present case is that in the services relating to photography, if

certain goods and materials are consumed, then the value of those goods and

materials cannot be included in the value of the services for levy of Service Tax.







2793852,


In the case of Imagic Creative P. Ltd. vs. CCT, Appeal (civil) 252 of 2008

Decision Dt. 9 January, 2008 SC (2 Judge) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Payments of service tax as also the VAT are mutually exclusive. Therefore, they

should be held to be applicable having regard to the respective parameters of service

tax and the sales tax as envisaged in a composite contract as contradistinguished from

an indivisible contract. It may consist of different elements providing for attracting

different nature of levy. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that in a case of this nature,

sales tax would be payable on the value of the entire contract; irrespective of the

element of service provided.” Thus, the Court held that sales tax would not be payable

on the entire value of the contract – the service element must be calculated; and sales

tax would be payable on the remainder.

bl lUnHkZ esa ekuuh; iatkc gfj;k.kk mPp U;k;ky; dh f}lnL;h; ihB }kjk Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s Vahoo Colour Lab Service Tax Appeal No.21 of

2009 Decision Dt. 3 February, 2010 ds ekeys esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dk mYys[k Hkh fd;k tkuk izklafxd gksxk A iz'uxr ekeys esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k fuEufyf[kr iz'u fopkjk/khu Fkk& “whether the assessee is liable to pay the service tax on the

value of goods/material consumed, during the course of processing of photography

or not…”

ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fn;k x;k &

“The Court began by noting that the photography contract was to be treated as a

works contract [this is settled law now, but earlier there was a controversy – see

Rainbow Colour Labs, 118 STC 9 (SC) and Associated Cement vs. Commissioner of

Customs, 2001 JT (2) SC 141]. Next, it interpreted BSNL as having laid down the

principle that “if the nature of transaction involved is composite contract, of service

and sale and if the components of sale element are discernible, then both the

components cannot be re-mixed for the purpose of relevant tax.” Consequently, a

result analogous to Imagic was reached; and the Court held that service tax and sales

tax operate in two different spheres;. and service tax would be payable only on the

service component and not the whole amount of the consideration”

In the case of M/s CAP 'N' Chops Caterers vs. State of Haryana GSTR No. 01 of

2009 Date of Decision: 7.9.2010 [H.C. Punjab& Haryana] [D.B.] it has to be held that

entire turnover from catering contract cannot be held to be taxable as sale of goods

under Section 2 (l)(v) of the Act. The sale tax can be levied on the turnover of sale,

after excluding the turnover attributable to service.

mijksDr U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa ls Li"V gS fd oDlZ dkUVªsDV ds ekeyksa esa Service ,oa Sale nksuksa ds rRo fo|eku gksrs gSa A U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa esa ;g Hkh







2793852,


LFkkfir dj fn;k x;k gS fd oDlZ dkUVªsDV ds ekeyksa esa Dominent Nature Test

Apply ugha gksxk ,oa ,sls ekeyksas esa service rFkk works contract nksuksa ij tax dh ns;rk gksxh A oDlZ dkUVªsDV ds ekeys esa VSDl lfoZl ds dEiksusUV dks ?kVkdj ns; gksxk A blh izdkj lfoZl VSDl oLrqvksa ds ewY; rFkk dUtwesfcy bR;kfn dks ?kVkdj ns; gksxk A

fcUnq la[;k&2

QksVksxzkQh Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax ds dk;Z ij oDlZ dkUVªsDV VSDl dh ns;rk%&

QksVksxzkQh dh Msoyfix ,oa fizfUVax dk dk;Z djus okys O;kikfj;ksa }kjk ;g rdZ fn;k tkrk gS fd QksVksxzkQh dk dk;Z 'kq) :Ik ls yscj odZ gS A xzkgd ds QksVks dk dksbZ cktkj ewY; ugha gksrk gS rFkk mldh fdlh dkef'kZ;y oLrq dh Hkkafr [kjhn&fcdzh ugha gskrh gS A fdlh xzkgd ds QksVks dk nwljs O;fDr ds fy, dksbZ mi;ksfxrk ,oa ewY; ugha gksrk gS A QksVksxzkQh ds Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax ds dk;Z esa fLdYM yscj dk iz;ksx lUufgr gksrk gS A bl izdkj QksVksxzkQj }kjk xzkgd dks lfoZl nh tkrh gS vkSj xzkgd }kjk ml lfoZl ds cnys QksVksxzkQj dks Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk gS A ;g Hkh dgk tkrk gS fd QksVksxzkQh ds Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax ds dk;Z esa iz;qDr gksus okys QksVksxzkfQd isij ,oa dsehdy ek= bUlhMsUVy ,oa buflxfufQdsUl gksrk gS rFkk mlesa lfoZl dk rRo MkfeusUV uspj dk gksrk gS A vr% muds vUrj.k ij fdlh Hkh izdkj ds [email protected]; dj dh ns;rk ugha gS A vius dFku ds leFkZu esa O;kikfj;ksa }kjk fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d fu.kZ; lanfHkZr fd;s tkrs gSa%&

1- The Assistant Sales Tax Officer vs. B.C. Kame [1977] 39 STC 237 SC

2- M/s Rainbow Colour Lab and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others,

2000 (SC) [D.B.]

3- C.K. Jidheesh vs. UOI, 2005, SC [D.B.]

4- Studio Kamalalaya & Anothers vs. Commercial Tax Officer & Others West

Bengal Taxation Tribunal Decision Dt. 04-12-1992

5- Studio Sujata vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax (2008) 17 VST 289, Orissa H.C.







2793852,


6- The commissioner Trade Tax U.P. vs. D.K.Colour Lab, Alld. H.C. Decision Dt.

16-08-2010

oLrqr% Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds 46osa la'kks/ku ds iwoZ oDlZ dkWUVsªDV ij dj fu/kkZfjr fd;s tkus dk dksbZ fof/kd vk/kkj ugh Fkk] fdUrq mDr la'kks/ku ds

}kjk Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vkfVZfdy&366 ds Dykt 29, esa mfYyf[kr ^^tax on

the sale are purchase of goods'' ds Dykt (b) ds vUrxZr fuEufyf[kr va'k tksM+ fn;k x;k gS%&

(b) ''a tax on the transfer of property in goods (whether as

goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works

contract;

mDr la'kks/ku ds i'pkr m0iz0 lfgr vU; jkT;ksa }kjk Hkh vius&vius jkT;ksa ds vf/kfu;eksa esa oDlZ dkWUVsªDV ij djk/kku dk izkfo/kku dj fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj fn0 01&01&2008 ls m0iz0 esa oSV ykxw gksus ds i'pkr m0iz0 oSV vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr Hkh oDlZ dkWUVªsDV ij dj vkjksi.k dk izkfo/kku fd;k x;k gS vkSj mlds lEcU/k essa m0iz0 oSV fu;ekoyh ds fu;e&9 esa dj fu/kkZj.k dk <ax fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS A vr% oDlZ dkWUVsªDV ij dj vkjksfir fd;k tkuk iw.kZr% U;k;ksfpr ,oa fof/klEer gS A

tgkW rd O;kikfj;ksa }kjk lUnfHkZr U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa dk iz'u gS& mDr ds vkyksd esa fofHkUu U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa rFkk fof/kd O;oLFkkvksa ij nf"Vikr fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxk A

dzekad&01 ij lanfHkZr loZJh B.C. Kame dk okn fu.kZ; 46osa lafo/kku la'kks/ku ds iwoZ dk gS vkSj orZeku fof/kd izkfo/kkuksa rFkk U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa ds vkyksd esa mDr U;kf;d fu.kZ; izklafxd ugha gS A

dzekad&02 ij mfYyf[kr okn fu.kZ; M/s Rainbow Colour Lab and others vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2000 N.T.N.(Vo.16) 210 (SC ); 2000 UPTC 193 ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dh f}lnL;h; ihB }kjk fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fn;k x;k gS%&

"The Photo graph has no marketable value. What is expected from the

photographer is his service, skill and talent. If any property passes to the customer in







2793852,


the form of photographic paper, it is only incidental to the service contract. No

portion of the turnover of a photographer relating to this category of work would be

exigible to sales tax."

ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds mDr okn fu.kZ; dks M/s Associated Cement

Companies Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Cusstoms 2002 N.T.N.(Vol 20) 73 SC ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dh rhu lnL;h; ihB }kjk fofHkUu U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa dk fo'kn foospu djrs gq, distinguish dj fn;k x;k vkSj fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fn;k x;k%&

"Even if the dominant intention of the contract is rendering of service which

will amount to a works contract, after the 46th Amendment, the State would be

empowered to levy sales tax on the material used in such contract.

"The conclusion arrived at in M/s Rainbow Colour Lab and others vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh and Others 2000 N.T.N.(Vo.16) 210 (SC ); 2000 UPTC 193, in our

opinion, runs counter to the express provision contained in Article 366 (29A) as also

the Constitutional Bench decision in the case of Builders Association of India vs. Union

of India (1989) 73 STC 370; 1989 (2) SCC 645"

bl izdkj iz'uxr okn fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk M/s

Rainbow Colour Lab (Supra) ds ekeys esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dks overruled dj fn;k x;kA

QksVksxzkQh ds Devloping & Printing ds lanHkZ esa M/s Vaaho Photo

InternationaL. Kanpur and another State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2003

NTN.(Vol 22) -246 ds okn fu.kZ; fn0 14&09&2003 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk ,d egRoiw.kZ fu.kZ; fn;k x;k gS]tks fuEu izdkj gS%&

"When a photograph whether positive or negative print, is given to the

customer certainly some material property is transferred to the customer, and it

cannot be said that only the service is rendered to the customer. It often that a

customer goes to a photographer's shop, the photographer takes him in to the studio

and takes his photographs. To this extent service is rendered. Thereafter when the

photograph is handed over the customer there is transfer of goods, when the

photograph sold to the customer there is a transfer of the property in goods and it is

not merely rendering of service as is the case in a barber's shop."

In the case of MMT (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of Karnataka 2004 137 STC 257

Kar [D.B.] 17 March, 2004 Hon’ble Court has held that “In view of the clear enunciation

of law in ACC, the appellant's contention that in a contract for digitalprinting, the







2793852,


dominant intention is digital printing, and not transfer of property in goods and

therefore no part of the contract price can be subjected to tax, even if the cost of vinyl

film (or other suitable material) on which the matter is printed and the cost of the ink

used for printing, constitute a part of the contract price, is clearly untenable. The test of

dominant intention is no longer relevant. A contract for digital printing is a "works

contract" and not a "service contract", even if it involves highly skilled work and

professional and technical expertise. Even if the value of material used in such a works

contract is a small percentage of the total cost, and even if the service element is the

dominant element, having regard to the decisions in Builders Association of India ; and

ACC , the value of the material used in digital printing contract will be exigible to tax.

Further the value of vinyl film and the chemicals/inks used for printing forms not a

negligible part, but a perceptible part of the price for the works contract.”

mijksDr U;kf;d fLFkfr 2005 rd cuh jgh A rnqijkar C.K. Jidheesh vs.

UOI, 2005, SC ds ekeys esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dh f}lnL;h; ihB }kjk Associated Cement Companies Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs 2002 ds ekeys esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; ls vlgefr O;Dr djrs gq, foi jhr fu.kZ; fn;k x;k A iz'uxr

ekeys esa O;kikjh }kjk QkbusUl ,DV]1994 rFkk fefuLVªh vkQ QkbusUl ds bl ldZwyj dks pqukSrh nh xbZ fd lfoZl VSDl xzkl ,ekm.V ij ns; ugha gksxk A O;kikjh ds vuqlkj lfoZl VSDl dh ns;rk fofHkUu izdkj ds [kpksZa rFkk oLrqvksa ds ewY; tSls&QksVksxzkfQd isij]dsehdy]vu,DliksTM QksVksxzkfQd fQYe]vu fjdkMZsM eSxusVsM Vsi] datwesfcy bR;kfn dks ?kVkus ds i'pkr~ dsoy nh xbZ lfoZl ds ewY; ij gh gksxh A ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk M/s Rainbow Colour Lab esa LFkkfir fl)karksa dks ekU;rk nsrs gq, O;kikjh ds dFku dks vLohdkj fd;k x;k vkSj QksVksxzkQh ds dk;Z dks fo'kq) lfoZl dkUVªsDV ekurs gq, fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fn;k x;k%&

“In our view, there is no discrimination. It has already been held by this Court

that such cases are contracts of service pure and simple. In other cases, referred to, there

is a bifurcation because service is provided and goods are sold. We thus see no

substance in this Writ Petition. The same stands dismissed.”

;g fLFkfr o"kZ 2006 ds M/s BSNL vs. Union of India [2006 ] ds okn fu.kZ; rd cuh jgh A iz'uxr ekeys esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dh rhu lnL;h; ihB }kjk loZJh ,lksfl;sVsM lhesUV ,tsUlh esa LFkkfir fl)karksa dks ekU;rk nsrs gq, M/s Rainbow Colour Lab rFkk C.K. Jidheesh ds ekeys esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ;ksa dks Distinguish dj fn;k x;k&

“We agree. After the 46th Amendment, the sale element of those contracts

which ere covered by the six sub-clauses of clause (29A) of the Article 366 are







2793852,


separable and may be subjected to sales tax by the States under Entry 54 of List II and

there is no question of the dominant nature test applying. Therefore when in 2005 ,

C.K. Jidheesh vs. Union of India -(2005)-8-SCALE-784 held that the aforesaid

observations in Associated Cement (supra) were merely obiter and that Rainbow

Colour Lab. (supra) was still good law, it was not correct.”

bl izdkj Rainbow Color Lab. and C.K. Jidheesh ds okn fu.kZ; QksVksxzkQh ds O;kikfj;ksa dks ykHk ugh igqWpkrs gSa D;ksafd os fu.kZ; ek0 loksaZPp U;k;ky; dh yktZj csap }kjk overruled fd;s tk pqds gSa A

In the case of Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs. Hari And Company on 3/3/2006;

2006 (148) STC 92 Bombey High Court [D.B.] Hon’ble High Court held that “We are of

the view that Rainbow Colour Lab case [2000] 118 STC 9 (SC) and C. K. Jidleesh case

[2006] 144 STC 312 (SC) are no longer good law in view of the express Forty-sixth

Amendment to the Constitution of India and ACC case [2001] 124 STC 59 (SC). In any

event they deal with processing of photographs, hence 'will have no application in the

present case.” (para...29)

bl izdkj ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; rFkk ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu fu.kZ;ksa esa ;g fl)kar LFkkfir dj fn;k x;k gS fd ,deq'r lafonk (Composite

Contract) ds ekeyksa esa lfoZl rFkk lsy ds rRo dks iFkd fd;k tk ldrk gS rFkk 46osa lafo/kku la'kks/ku ds i'pkr~ fHkUu&2 fo/kkf;dk,a lfoZl rFkk lsy ds Hkkx ij vyx&2 dj yxk ldrh gSa A iz'uxr okn fu.kZ; esa ;g Hkh LFkkfir dj fn;k x;k gS fd oDlZ dkUVªsDV ds ekeyksa esa Dominet Nature Test Apply ugha gksxk A

QksVksxzkQh ds oDlZ dkUVªsDV dh Js.kh esa vkus rFkk mu ij djns;rk ds lEcU/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;]gfj;k.kk ,oa iatkc dh f}lnL;h; ihB }kjk Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s Vahoo Colour Lab, Service Tax Appeal No.21

of 2009 decision Dt. 3 February, 2010 ds ekeys esa fn;s x;s uohure fu.kZ; dk mYys[k fd;k tkuk izklafxd gksxk A iz'uxr ekeys esa ;g iz'u fopkjk/khu Fkk fd djnkrk }kjk lfoZl ds Hkkx ij lfoZl VSDl tek dj fn;k x;k Fkk]fdUrq foHkkx dk dFku ;g Fkk fd QksVksxzkQh ds Msofyfiax ,oa fizfUVax ds nkSjku [kir@iz;ksx gq, eky bR;kfn ds ewY; ij Hkh lfoZl VSDl ns; gksxk A ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk djnkrk ds i{k dks ekU;rk nsrs gq, fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fn;k x;k&







2793852,


“if the nature of transaction involved is composite contract, of service and

sale and if the components of sale element are discernible, then both the components

cannot be re-mixed for the purpose of relevant tax. Processing of photography cannot

be completed without the developing and printing process, to provide the service to

the recipient. The photography films, printing papers, chemicals and envelopes are the

integral and essential ingredients to complete the process of photography. Meaning

thereby, the components of sale of photography, developing and printing etc. are

clearly distinct and discernible than that of photography service. Photography is in the

nature of works contract and it involves the elements of both sale and service,

service tax is not leviable on the sale portion.”

In the case of M/s Aristo Prints Private Limited, Ghaziabad. vs. Commissioner,

Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow Trade Tax Revision N0. 106 of 2003 Decision Dt.08-

12-2010 Hon’ble High Court has held that the printing of lottery tickets as a works

contract. It has been further held that the ink and the other materials, used in the

printing have been passed on to the customers and, therefore, they are liable to tax

under Section 3-F of the UPTT Act.

In the case of Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. ....Applicant vs. M/s

Shanu Traders, Nehru Nagar, Meerut TTR NO. of 996 of 2003 Decision Dt..13-01-

2011; (2011) 15 VLJ 107 Hon’ble High Court has held that the contract for the printing

and supply of materials was works contract.

mijksDr U;kf;d fu.kZ; uohure gS rFkk mDr U;kf;d fu.kZ; ds QksVksxzkQh ds Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax ds ekeys esa Hkh iw.kZr% ykxw gksrs gSa A

fuEufyf[kr oknfu.kZ;ksa esa Hkh C.K. Jidheesh vs. UOI, 2005, SC ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dks Distinguish djrs gq, QksVksxzkQh dh Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax ds dk;Z dks oDlZ dkUVªsDV ds vUrxZr ekuk x;k gS%&

1. Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs. Hari And Company on 3/3/2006; 2006 148 STC

92 Bombey High Court [D.B.]

2. Delhi Studio Colour Lab vs. Union Of India (Uoi) on 18/10/2006; 2007 5 S T R

184, 2007 7 STT 265 Punjab-Haryana High Court [D.B.]

3. Shilpa Color Lab vs. Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 30/10/2006; 2007 8 STT 102

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Bangalore [D.B.]

4. Tvl.R.Mini Colour Lab vs. The Tamil Nadu Taxation on 06/08/2007 Writ

Petition No.19378 of 2003 Madras High Court [D.B.]







2793852,


5. P.A. Premkumar, Proprietor vs. State Of Kerala on 22/07/ 2008 ST.Rev.No.

205 of 2004 Kerala High Court [D.B.]

bl izdkj mijksDr U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa ds vkyksd esa ;g fof/k LFkkfir gS fd QksVksxzkQh dh Msoyfiax ,aM fizfUVax dk dk;Z oDlZ dkUVªsDV dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS vkSj rn~~uqlkj mDr lafonk ds fu"iknu ds QyLo:Ik varfjr gksus okys eky ;Fkk&QksVksxzkfQd isij]dsehdy]buoyi bR;kfn dh MhEM fcdzh ij djns;rk gS A

tgkW rd Studio Kamalalaya & Anothers vs. Commercial Tax Officer & Others

West Bengal Taxation Tribunal (1993) STC-307 Decision Dt. 04-12-1992 ds ekeys esa ekuuh; vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dk iz'u gS] iz'uxr okn fu.kZ; esa QksVksxzkQh ,oa Msoyfiax ds dk;Z dks yscj odZ ekuk x;k gS A iz'uxr okn fu.kZ; LVsV vkQ rfeyukMq cuke vkuane fo'oukFke ¼1989½ 1 ,l0lh0lh0&390 ds okn fu.kZ; ij voyfEcr gS]ftlesa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk iz'ui=ksa dh NikbZ ds dk;Z dks tkWc odZ ekuk x;k gS A LVwfM;ks deyky; ds okn fu.kZ; dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;]eqEcbZ dh f}lnL;h; ihB }kjk Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs.

Matushree Textile Limited 2003 (vol 132) STC 539 Bombay H.C.[D.B.] ds ekeys esa Overruled dj fn;k x;k gS A ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dh rhu lnL;h; ihB }kjk M/s Associated Cement Companies Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs 2002 N.T.N.(Vol

20) 73 SC ,oe~ M/s BSNL Vs Union of India [2006 ] rFkk mi;qZfYyf[kr vU; ekeyksa esa fn;s x;s U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa ,oa LFkkfir fl)karksa ds vkyksd esa O;kikjh }kjk lanfHkZr mijksDr U;kf;d fu.kZ; orZeku ifjizs{; esa izklafaxd ugha gS vkSj mudk dksbZ ykHk O;kikfj;ksa dks iznku ugah fd;k tk ldrk gS A

tgkW rd Studio Sujata vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax (2008) 17 VST 289,

Orissa H.C. ds ekeys esa ek0 mM+hlk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dk iz'u gS] iz'uxr okn fu.kZ; jsucks dyj ySc] LVwfM;ks deyky; rFkk oh0lh0 dkes ds okn fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrkssa ds vk/kkj ij voyfEcr gS vkSj mDr lHkh okn fu.kZ; overruled gks pqds gSa] ftudk fo'kn foospu Åij fd;k tk pqdk gS A vr% iz'uxr okn fu.kZ; dk dksbZ ykHk QksVksxzkQh Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax ds O;kifj;ksa dks iznku ugh fd;k tk ldrk gS A







2793852,


tgkW rd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;]bykgkckn dh ,dy ihB }kjk The

commissioner Trade Tax U.P. vs. D.K.Colour Lab, Alld. H.C. Decision Dt. 16-08-2010 ds ekeys esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dk iz'u gS] mDr okn fu.kZ; esa dksbZ Lora= QkbfMax ugh nh xbZ gS A iz'uxr okn fu.kZ; ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds C.K.

Jidheesh vs. UOI, 2005, SC ds U;k; fu.kZ; ij voyfEcr gS]ftls ekuuh; loksZP; U;k;ky; dh yktZj csap }kjk M/s BSNL vs. Union of India [2006] ds ekeys esa overruled dj fn;k x;k gS A vr% mijksDr U;kf;d fu.kZ; dk dksbZ ykHk O;kikfj;ksa dks iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS A

QksVksxzkQh dh Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax dk dk;Z fufoZokn :Ik ls oDlZ dkUVªsDV dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS]fdUrq ;gkW ij ,d egRoiw.kZ iz'u ;g Hkh mifLFkr gksrk gS fd ;fn xzkgd }kjk Lo;a QksVks [khapdj vuMsoyIM@vu,DliksTM jhy@eseksjh dkMZ dks QksVks LVwfM;ks@ySc esa ys tkdj mls Msoyi rFkk fizUV djk;k tkrk gS rks mDr dk;Z oDlZ dkUVªsDV dh Js.kh esa vk;sxk vFkok ugha \ mDr lUnHkZ esa ekuuh; dsjyk mPp U;k;ky; dh f}lnL;h; ihB }kjk loZJh ih0,0izssedqekj ds ekeys esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dk mYys[k fd;k tkuk izklafxd gksxk%&

P.A. Prem Kumar vs. Stale of Kerala W.A. No. 776 of 1999 Decision Dt.

26/3/1999;H.C. (Ker)[D.B.]. Hon’ble High Court has held that the developing of

exposed film brought by customer and taking positive prints from them and supply

negatives and the prints in the desired size and taking positive print from negative

brought by customer and returning the negatives to the customer amounts to works

contract.

bl izdkj 46osa lafo/kku la'kks/ku rFkk mijksDr leLr U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa ds vkyksd esa QksVks LVwfM;ks@ySc }kjk QksVks dh Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax ds dk;Z dks oDlZ dkWUVsªDV u ekus tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gS vkSj ;g dk;Z fo'kq) :i ls oDlZ dkWUVSDV gh gS] ftlesa ,d vksj fLdYM yscj ,oa lfoZl fufgr gksrk gS rFkk nwljh vksj QksVksxzkQh isij] dyj]dsfedy rFkk buoyi dk vUrj.k Hkh fufgr gksrk gS] ftldh MhEM fcdzh lafonkdkj ls lafonh dks gksrh gS A bl izfdz;k esa QksVksxzkQj }kjk tgkW rd vius fLdy dk iz;ksx fd;k tkrk gS] ogkW rd og lfoZl dkUVªSDV dk ikVZ gskrk gS rFkk QksVks [khapus ds ckn QksVks dh Msoyfiax ,ao fizfUVax esa iz;qDr lkexzh ;Fkk& QksVksxzkfQd







2793852,


isij]dsehdy]dyj]bad]buoyi bR;kfn ls lEcfU/kr Hkkx oDlZ dkUVªSDV ls lEcfU/kr gS rFkk VªkalQj vkQ izksiVhZ vkQ xqM~l lfUufgr gksus ds dkj.k mDr oLrqvksa dh MhEM lsy gksus ds dkj.k og fcdzh dj dk ikVZ gksrk gS A fcdzh dj dh ;g ns;rk QksVksxzkfQd LVwfM;ks@ySc }kjk Lo;a QksVks [khapdj vFkok xzkgd }kjk viuh QksVks fuxsfVo ds :i esa [khapdj QksVks LVwfM;ks@ySc ls mldh Msoyfiax rFkk fizfUVax djkdj ikftfVo QksVks ysus lEcU/kh nksuksa ekeyksa esa ykxw gksrh gS A QksVksxzkQj }kjk QskVks esa iz;qDr oLrqvksa dh dher tksM+dj xzkgd ls olwyk tkrk gS A vr% buesa Valuable consideration vfuok;Zr% lfUufgr gksrk gS A vr% QksVksxzkQh Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax ds dk;Z esa QksVksxzkQj }kjk xzkgd ls izkIr dh x;h /kujkf'k ij]tks&tks oLrq,a vUrfjr gksrh gSa]muds ewY; rFkk mu ij foKkfir dj ds vuqlkj djns;rk fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxh A

fcUnq la[;k&3

fcdzh ewY;&

tgkW rd QksVksxzkWQh ds Msoyfiax ,o fizfUVax ds dk;Z esa lsy izkbl dk iz'u gS] loZizFke ;g Li"V djuk vko';d gS fd QksVksxzkQh ds Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax ds oDlZ dkWUVSªDV esa fdu&fdu oLrqvksa dh MhEM fcdzh ij dj fu/kkZfjr gksxk rFkk ldy izkfIr;ksa esaa ls dkSu&dkSu ls [kpsZ ?kVk;s tk;sxsa A

A& QksVksxzkfQd isij rFkk iSfdax eSVsfj;y@buoyi&

QksVksxzkQh ds oDlZ dkUVªsDV esa iz;qDr gksus okys QksVksxzkfQd isij rFkk iSfdax eSVsfj;y@buoyi xzkgd@dzsrk dks izR;{kr% varfjr gksrk gS( vr% mldh ifjdYI; fcdzh ij djns;rk fu/kkZfjr dh tk,xh A

B& dsehdy@dyj&

QksVksxzkWQh ds Msoyfiax ,o fizfUVax ds O;kikfj;ksa }kjk dsehdy@dyj dks consumable ekurs gq, mUgsa ldy /kujkf'k ls ?kVkrs gq, fdlh izdkj dh djns;rk Lohdkj ugha dh tkrh gS A mDr lEcU/k esa fof/kd fLFkfr fuEu izdkj gS %&







2793852,


In the case of Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs. Matushree Textile Limited 2003

(vol 132) STC 539 Bombay H.C.[D.B.] Hon’ble High Court has held that... “It is true,

that to constitute sale, either under the Sale of Goods Act, or under the BST Act, the

intention of the parties to transfer the goods by an agreement, determination of price

of the goods to be transferred and the actual transfer of goods as per the agreement is

necessary. However, under the Works Contracts Act, the concept of deemed sale has

been introduced, as a result, irrespective of the criteria laid down under the Sale of

Goods Act or the BST Act, if, in the execution of a works contract, the property of the

materials used in the execution of that contract passes either in its original form or in

some other form, then, there is deemed sale of those materials under the Works

Contracts Act. The definition of "sale" under the Sale of Goods Act and under the BST

Act is materially different from the definition given under the Works Contracts Act. In

other words, to constitute sale under the Works Contracts Act, the only criteria

required to be fulfilled is the transfer of property in goods used in the execution of

works contract either in its original form or in some other form and not the criteria laid

down under the Sale of Goods Act or under the BST Act.(para 34)

In para 36--- Mr. Joshi strongly contended that the transfer of property in the

form of coloured shade/print is on the theory of accretion or accession which is

incidental to the contract and not by way of transfer of the materials used in the

execution of a works contract, As pointed out by the apex Court in the case of Gannon

Dunkerley & Co. [1993] 88 STC 204 at 213, the mischief or the defect in the expression

"sale" pointed out by judicial decision led to the Forty-sixth Amendment to the

Constitution. Once the mischief or the defect is remedied by bringing in the concept of

deemed sale in a works contract, then the only criteria relevant for deemed sale is the

passing of the property in goods (in any form). In other words, to constitute sale under

the Works Contracts Act, the test is, whether the materials used in the execution of a

works contract pass to the contractee either in its original form or in some other form

? If it passes, then there is deemed sale of the materials used in the execution of the

works contract even if there is no specific agreement between the parties for sale of

materials, even if the price for such sale is not agreed between the parties and even

though the materials are not delivered as materials. In the present case, due to the

chemical reaction of colours, chemicals and dyes, the inherent property in those goods

are passed on to the fabrics. The fact that after the inherent property in those goods is

transferred to the fabrics the remaining solution is thrown out as waste or affluent,

does not in any way affect the taxability on transfer of the property in goods already

effected on the fabrics. Admittedly, after dyeing, the solution made of colours,

chemicals and dyes is thrown as waste, because, on transfer of the property in the

form of coloured shade, the said solution becomes worthless. Therefore, the

Legislature has sought to tax the property in goods which passes and not the remnants

or the affluent that remains after the passing of the inherent property in those goods.”







2793852,


mijksDr fl)kar ls Li"V gS fd the intention of the parties to transfer the

goods is irrelavant under the works contract.

In the case of Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs. Hari And Company on 3/3/2006;

2006 (148) STC 92 Bombey High Court [D.B.] Hon’ble High Court has held that the

moment paper and ink changed hand it will be construed as “sale” within the works

contract – Even if the dominant intention of the contract is rendering of service, it will

amount to works contract and after the forty sixth amendment, the States would be

empowered to levy sales tax on transfer of material (in any form) used in execution of

works contract – In the case of photocopying as far as paper and ink are concerned,

which are passed on, which passing of property is a deemed sale and tax is leviable on

such paper and ink under works contract.(para...31&32 )

In the case of The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. vs. M/s. Aristo Printers Pvt. Ltd. E-

64, G. T. Road, Ghaziabad TTR NO. 106 OF 2003 H.C. Alld. Decision Dt.08-12-2010 Hon’ble

High Court has held that “In my view the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable.

Section 3-F of the Act levies tax on the value of goods involved in execution of works

contract. The question for consideration is whether in the printing of lottery tickets,

ink and processing materials, namely, chemicals, etc. are passed on to the customers.

Undoubtedly, ink passed on to the customers as it is apparent on the printing paper.

The inks are diluted in chemicals (processing material) and such ink in the diluted

forms are being used in the printing, therefore, both ink and chemical (processing

material) are passed on to the customers. It was not the case of the assessee at any

stage that the chemical (processing material) was consumable and evaporates in the

process of printing and is not passed on to the customers. Therefore, I am of the view

that both the ink and chemical used in the printing passed on to the customers. It may

be mentioned here that the assessee had also purchased and used consumable but

the same has not been taxed.

In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal as well as the order of the first

appellate authority are not sustainable and liable to be set aside, so far it deletes the

tax on the value of ink and processing materials, namely, chemical, the order of the

assessing authority in this regard is restored.”

mijksDr fl)kUr ls Li"V gS fd oDlZ dkWUVsªDV ds ekeyksa esa lEcfU/kr i{kksa dh VªkUlQj vkQ izksiVhZ bu xqM~l dh ea'kk vizklafxd gksrh gS vkSj Colour, chemical bR;kfn ewy :i esa VªkalQj ugha gksrs gSa] vfirq mudh properties

shade ds :i esa QksVksxzkfQd isij ij transfer gksrh gS] ftlds dkj.k mijksDr U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa esa ;g er fLFkj fd;k x;k gS fd bl izfdz;k esa vUrfoZ"V







2793852,


Colour, chemical, dye bR;kfn dh deemed sale gksrh gS vkSj ml ij djns;rk fu;ekuqlkj vkdf"kZr gksrh gS A

C&yscj ,oa lfoZlsl&

QksVksxzkWQh ds Msoyfiax ,o fizfUVax dk dk;Z djus okys O;kikfj;ksa }kjk ldy izkfIr esa ls yscj ,oa lfoZlst ds en esa 20 izfr0 /kujkf'k ?kVkdj ykHk ysus dk iz;kl fd;k tkrk gS A bl lEcU/k esa ewY; laof/kZr dj fu;ekoyh ds fu;e&9¼3½ ds izkfo/kku fuEu izdkj gSa%&

“Where accounts maintained by the contractor do not show separately the

value of labour and services and amount of profit accrued on such labour and services,

or accounts maintained by the dealer are not worthy of credence or if the dealer has

not maintained accounts, for the purpose of determining turnover of goods in which

transfer of property in goods has taken place, in cases other than those mentioned in

the table below, an amount, representing twenty percent of gross amount received or

receivable, shall be deducted towards labour and services and amount of profit

accrued thereon and in the cases described or mentioned in column 2 of the table

given below, amount of deduction towards such labour and services and amount of

profit accrued thereon shall be computed at the rate percentages, given in column 3

against the entry in column 2 of the table, of the amount received or receivable.”

mi;qZDr izkfo/kku ls Li"V gS fd dsoy rhu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa gh 20 izfr0 ds yscj] lfoZlst dk ykHk oDlZ dkUVªsUV ds ekeyksa esa ns; gksxk%&

(i) ;fn lafonkdkj }kjk yscj ,oa lfoZlst dk ewY; rFkk mlls lEcfU/kr ykHk dh /kujkf'k dks ys[kksa esa iFkd ls u n'kkZ;k x;k gks A

(ii) O;kikjh }kjk j[kh xbZ ys[kk&iqLrdsa fo'oluh; u gksa A

(iii) O;kikjh }kjk ys[kk&iqLrdsa u j[kh x;h gksa A

mi;qZDr rhuksa gh ifjfLFkfr;kW QksVksxzkQh ds Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax dk O;kikj djus okys O;kikfj;ksa ds lEcU/k esa fo|eku ugh gksrh gS A ,sls O;kikfj;ksa }kjk lfoZl VSDl dk ekMosV fy;k tkrk gS vkSj muds }kjk lkekU;r% vkfMVsM VsªfMax ,dkmUV~l] izkfQV ykWl ,dkmUV rFkk cSysa'k 'khV j[kh tkrh gS A vr% yscj rFkk lfoZlst ds en esa ldy /kujkf'k dk 20 izfr0 ykHk u nsdj izkfQV







2793852,


ykWl ,dkmUV esa n'kkZ;s x;s yscj lfoZlst ds Hkqxrku dk gh ykHk okLro esa iznku fd;k tk;sxk A

D& fo|qr O;;&

Gannon Dunkerley & Co. vs. State of Rajsthan & others 1992; 1992 NTN

(Vol. 1 ) 417 ds okn esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dh laoS/kkfud ihB }kjk fo|qr dks daT;wescy ekuk x;k gS A vr% fo|qr ds en esa gq, [kpZ dks ?kVkuk fof/kd ck/;rk gS A QksVksxzkQh ds Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax ds O;kikfj;ksa }kjk fo|qr 'kfDr dk iz;ksx IykaV ,aM e'khujh ds vfrfjDr vkfQl ds vUnj rFkk ckgj dh ykbVksa],vj dUMh'kuj]ia[kksa]dEI;wVj bR;kfn dks Hkh pykus esa fd;k tkrk gS A mDr oLrqvksa dk lEcU/k QksVks dh Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax ls ugha gS A vr% fo|qr ds en esa [kpZ gqbZ lEiw.kZ /kujkf'k dk ykHk fn;k tkuk vFkok ?kVk;k tkuk mfpr ugha gksxk A

E&Mhty O;;&

ewY; lacf/kZr dj fu;ekoyh ds fu;e&9 ¼,p½ ds izkfo/kku fuEu izdkj gS%&

(h) all amounts representing the value of non-vat goods purchased from within the

State in the circumstances in which the dealer executing the works contact himself is

liable to pay tax on turnover of purchase of such goods;

bl izdkj dk;Z lafonk esa iz;qDr gq, ukWu oSV xqM~l dks ?kVkus dk izkfo/kku gS A Mhty ukWu oSV xqM~l gS vkSj O;kikjh }kjk mlls tujsVj pykdj fo?kqr 'kfDr dk mRiknu fd;k tkrk gS vkSj mDr mRikfnr 'kfDr dk iz;ksx IykaV ,aM e'khujh ds vfrfjDr vkfQl ds vUnj rFkk ckgj dh ykbVksa],vj dUMh'kuj]ia[kksa]dEI;wVj bR;kfn dks Hkh pykus esa fd;k tkrk gS A mDr oLrqvksa dk lEcU/k QksVks dh Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax ls ugha gS A vr% Mhty ds en esa [kpZ gqbZ lEiw.kZ /kujkf'k dk ykHk fn;k tkuk vFkok ?kVk;k tkuk mfpr ugha gksxk A

fcUnq la[;k&4

izkIr Hkqxrku ij Lohd`r dj dh Hkk¡fr djns;rk dh fLFkfr&







2793852,


QksVksxzkQh ds Msoyfiax ,oa fiazfUVx dk dk;Z djus okys O;kikfj;ksa }kjk ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr en esa izkIr Hkqxrku ij fu/kkZfjr dj ij Lohdr dj dh HkkWfr C;kt ns; ugh gS] D;ksafd blesa fof/kd ,oa foLrr foospuk djrs gq, dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj muds }kjk fdlh Hkh Lrj ij djns;rk Lohdkj ugha dh tkrh gS A bl lEcU/k esa fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; uthjkikr mYys[kuh; gS%&

1. The Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. vs. Control Switch Gears Company Ltd., Sector –

2, NOIDA Trade Tax Revision Defective No. 73 of 2000 Decision Dt. 14-07-2010 H.C. Alld.

[D.B.]

“From a perusal of the statutory provisions reproduced above, we find that

under section 7 of the Act, a dealer is obliged to deposit the tax on the turnover

disclosed in the return. Section 8(1) of the Act provides for payment of admitted tax

within the time prescribed which under section 7(1A) is along with the return or

before submitting the return.

Explanation I to Rule 41(2) deals with the admitted tax liability to mean the tax

which is payable under the Act on the trunover as disclosed in the accounts

maintained by the dealer or admitted by him in any return or proceedings under the

Act, whichever is greater. Explanation II deals with admitted tax liability to mean the

tax payable under the Act by the dealer on his estimated turnover or both as the case

may be.

Thus, the scheme of the Act is that if a dealer does not deposit the tax payable

on the turnover as admitted by him in his return or shown in the books of account,

whichever is greater, either before or along with the filing of return than the dealer

exposes himself towards the liability of payment of interest under section 8(1) of the

Act.”

2. Mathew Pothen vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Appl..No. 8 of

2007 Decision Dt. 30/03/2009 H.C. Kerla [D.B.]

iz'uxr okn esa O;kikjh dk ;g dFku Fkk fd QksVksxzkQh ds Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax ij djns;rk dk fcUnq fookfnr jgk gS A vr% ml ij Lohdr dj dh Hkkafr C;kt dh ns;rk vkdf"kZr ugha gksrh gS A ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh f}lnL;h; ihB }kjk O;kikjh ds dFku dks vLohdkj djrs gq, fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fn;k x;k%&

“After hearing senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Govt. Pleader

and after going through the orders we find that the liability for payment of tax is no

longer in dispute. Of course there was confusion on account of conflicting judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter has now got finally settled by decision of







2793852,


the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies Case above referred. Govt.

Pleader pointed out that appellant has besides inter state purchase local purchases as

well and so much so there was deliberate attempt to evade payment of tax. His

further case is that interest is payable under Section 23(3A). Considering the delay in

payment of tax and for the sake of finality we feel the orders issued by the

Commissioner can be confirmed and interest payable under the KGST Act. The appeals

are accordingly dismissed.”

fopkjk/khu ekeys ds rF; Hkh mijksDr okn ds rF;ksa dh HkkWfr gS] ftlds vuqlkj QksVksxzkQh ds Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax dk dk;Z oDlZ dkUVªSDV dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS vkSj mlds fu"iknu esa vUrfjr gksus okyh oLrqvksa dh MhEM lsy ij djns;rk vkdf"kZr gksrh gS A QksVksxzkQh ds O;kikfj;ksa ds }kjk izLrqr ys[kk&iqLrdksa esa ?kksf"kr VuZvksoj dks Lohdkj djds rFkk mDr VuZvksoj esa ?kVkus ;ksX; /kujkf'k;kaW ?kVkdj mu ij fof/k vuqlkj djns;rk fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gS A vr% fof/kd izkfo/kkuksa rFkk U;kf;d fu.kZ;ksa ds vkyksd esa ,sls ekeyksas esa fu/kkZfjr dj ij Lohdr dj dh Hkkafr C;kt dh ns;rk Hkh vkdf"kZr gksrh gS A

--------------------------------------

Documents

QksVksxzkQh Msoyfiax ,oa fizfUVax cuke oDlZ · · 2014-08-07professional photographer or a commercial concern engaged in the business of ... relating to Shops and Establishments