Page 173 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] RAJESWARI COLOUR LAB v. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHENNAI 75
2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 75 (Mad.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
[MADURAI BENCH]
Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.
RAJESWARI COLOUR LAB
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHENNAI
W.P. (M.D.) Nos. 8091-8094 of 2013 and M.P. (M.D.) Nos. 1, 1, 1 & 1 of 2013,
decided on 5-8-2019
Photographic services - Contract of skill and labour - Levy of VAT -
Issue no longer res integra having been decided in catena of decisions that
levy of Service Tax and VAT is mutually exclusive and that aforesaid service is
of skill and labour rather than sale of any goods - In view of above, since peti-
tioner is already discharging Service Tax, demand of VAT on same activity not
sustainable - Impugned VAT assessment quashed - Article 226 of Constitution
of India. [paras 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]
Petitions allowed
CASES CITED
Assistant Sales Tax Officer v. B.C. Kiame — (1977) 39 STC 237 (SC) — Relied on ............. [Paras 6, 10, 12]
Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Commissioner
— 2001 (128) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.) — Relied on ............................................................................. [Paras 6, 14]
C.K. Jidheesh v. Union of India — 2006 (1) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.) — Relied on ..................................... [Paras 6, 14]
Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
— 2008 (9) S.T.R. 337 (S.C.) — Relied on ............................................................................... [Paras 6, 15]
Rainbow Colour Lab v. State of Madhya Pradesh
— 2001 (134) E.L.T. 332 (S.C.) — Relied on ........................................................................... [Paras 6, 13]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri C. Baktha Siromoni, for the Petitioner.
Mrs. J. Padmavathy Devi, Special Government
Pleader, for the Respondent.
[Order (Common)]. - Challenge in these writ petitions is to an assess-
ment framed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006
(in short ‘Act’) in relation to the periods 2006-2007 to 2009-2010.
2. The question that arises in all four writ petitions is common. The pe-
titioner is a registered dealer and runs a Photo Studio in Trichirappalli. The peti-
tioner takes digital photo prints without using photographic films, transfer such
images to the computer and prints the same with the assistance of a computer
and printer, into prints.
3. According to the petitioner, its activities fall within the ambit of
‘photographic services’ and the petitioner is assessed to service tax as ‘works
contract’ under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.
4. While this is so, the petitioner received notices under the provisions
of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short ‘Act’) for the periods in
question calling upon it to show cause why the turnover not be subjected to
VAT. The petitioner raised objections to the proposals despite which orders of
assessment, adverse to it, were passed on 8-12-2011.
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  237