TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court ruling: Photography services not a works contract, tax liability negated</h1> <h3>Studio Sujata Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, Cuttack</h3> Studio Sujata Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, Cuttack - [2008] 17 VST 289 (Ori) Issues:1. Tax liability for photographs as execution of works contract2. Perversity of Tribunal's conclusion due to non-consideration of facts and lawIssue 1: Tax liability for photographs as execution of works contractThe petitioner, engaged in processing and developing photography, argued that the photographs produced are not marketable goods but a service provided to clients. The Sales Tax Officer assessed the petitioner as an unregistered dealer, contending the activities as works contract. The petitioner's objections were ignored, leading to an assessment of tax and penalty. The first appellate authority confirmed the tax levy but reduced the penalty. The Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal upheld the tax but deleted the penalty. The petitioner then approached the High Court, arguing that the photography work does not constitute a works contract as defined in the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The petitioner cited various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and High Courts, supporting the view that photography services do not involve a works contract. The Revenue did not contest this argument, relying on a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the service nature of such contracts. The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the photography work does not fall under the purview of a works contract, thus negating the tax liability.Issue 2: Perversity of Tribunal's conclusion due to non-consideration of facts and lawThe High Court addressed the second issue regarding the alleged perversity of the Tribunal's conclusion. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal's decision was perverse due to non-consideration and misconsideration of facts and law. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the nature of the photography services provided, which led to an incorrect assessment of tax liability. The High Court, after considering the arguments presented by both parties and the precedents cited, found in favor of the petitioner. The High Court held that the Tribunal's decision was indeed perverse, and the questions raised by the petitioner were answered in the negative and affirmative, respectively. Consequently, the High Court disposed of all three revision applications in favor of the petitioner, without imposing any costs.In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, determining that the photography services provided did not constitute a works contract, thereby negating the tax liability imposed by the Sales Tax Officer. The Court also found the Tribunal's decision to be perverse and answered the questions raised by the petitioner accordingly.
TaxTMI 