Page 60 - GSTL_16th July 2020_Vol. 38_Part 3

298 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
October, 2019 along with the return of September, 2019 shall be treated as the
petitioner having discharged its tax liability of August, 2017 within the period
stipulated under the GST laws. The petitioner shall not be liable to pay any inter-
est on such tax amount for the period from 21-9-2017 to October, 2019. Rule is
made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs.

_______

2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 298 (M.P.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
JABALPUR
Ajay Kumar Mittal, CJ. and Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
AGRAWAL COLOUR ADVANCE PHOTO SYSTEM

Versus
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.
Central Excise Appeal No. 1 of 2013 with C.E.A. Nos. 2-3 of 2013,
decided on 13-3-2020
1
Valuation (Service Tax) - Exclusion of value of goods and materials
sold by service provider to service recipient in terms of Notification No.
12/2003-S.T. - Value of material and chemicals consumed in photography ser-
vice - Sale element of those contracts which are covered by six sub-clauses of
clause (29A) of Article 366 of Constitution of India are separable and may be
subjected to sales tax by States under Entry 54 of List II - Photography service
having both elements of goods and services covered under works contract - In
works contract involving transfer of property attracted provisions contained in
Article 366(29A) ibid - In execution of works contract involving transfer of
property even in some other form than in goods, tax on such sale or purchase
of goods leviable - No question of applying dominant nature after 46th
Amendment - Sale tax leviable on Photographic paper and consumables and
their value not includible in value of Photography service for purpose of Ser-
vice Tax - Value of Photography service to be determined in isolation of cost of
goods such as photography paper, consumables and chemicals with which im-
age was printed, negatives and other material which had “goods” component
liable to sales tax - Term ‘sale’ appearing in exemption Notification No.
12/2003-S.T. also include “deemed sale” as defined by Article 366(29A)(b) ibid
- Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994. - The finding of the Tribunal that in Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited’s case the Apex Court has only given the passing remarks and
did not overrule either C.K. Jidheesh or Rainbow Colour Lab and Another v. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others [2001 (134) E.L.T. 332 (S.C.), is unsustainable. [2006 (2)
S.T.R. 161 (S.C.); 2015 (321) E.L.T. 366 (S.C.) relied on]. [paras 16, 17, 19, 20, 21]
Appeals allowed
CASES CITED
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India — 2006 (2) S.T.R. 161 (S.C.) — Relied on ..... [Paras 4, 5, 17]
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from Final Order No. 483/2012, dated 7-6-2012 by CESTAT, New Delhi.
GST LAW TIMES  16th July 2020  60