TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 837
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the refund of the said amounts is on account of the judicial pronouncement that the photographic activities are not a sale, but only a contract of work. Sri G. Sarangan, the learned senior advocate appearing for Sri Keshavamurthy, for the petitioner submits that the issue is no more res integra. He brings to my notice the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Keshoram Surindranath Photo-Mag (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commis sioner of Commercial Taxes (LR), City Division, Bangalore reported in [2001] 121 STC 175 (Karn). The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow (page 186 in 121 STC): "31. Photography is a process of an art of producing visible images on sensitive bodies by action of light or other fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an strenuously brings to my notice that the considered view taken by the Division Bench judgment in the case of Keshoram [2001] 121 STC 175 (Karn) is upheld by the honourable Supreme Court, by its order, dated April 20, 2000 passed in S.L.P. Nos. 6136 to 6163 of 2000. Nextly, he also brings to my notice the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Golden Color Lab & Studio, Bangalore v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore reported in [2004] 134 STC 570 (Karn); [2003] 55 KLJ 129, wherein the earlier view taken in Keshoram's case [2001] 121 STC 175 (Karn) is reiterated. He also brings to my notice the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Pro Lab v. State of Karnataka reported in [2006] 144 STC 33 (Karn); [2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the respondents (herein)." In view of the granting of this interim order, the respondents are not obliged to refund the amounts, is the emphatic submission of the Government Pleader. He also submits that the respondents have initiated suo motu revision proceedings and that only on their conclusion the petitioner's liability to pay the tax can be exactly quantified. He submits that he has no instruc tions as to whether the amounts were refunded to Suresh and R.K. Colour Labs. He further submits that if this court is inclined to give a direction to the respondents to refund the amounts, the liberty be reserved to the respondents to insist for the furnishing of the bank guarantee or any security to the satisfaction of respondent No. 1. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to which my attention is elaborately drawn by Sri Sarangan, is that the photographic activities of processing and supplying the photo prints, photo negatives, is not a sale. The re-introduction of entry No. 25 of the Sixth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 is already held to be unsustainable and unconstitutional. In similar matters, this court has already given a direction to the Government to decide the case of the assessee for the refund of amounts in the light of the decision in the case of Suresh Colour Labs case [2008] 11 VST 621 (Karn). Thus considering legal and factual matrix of the case, this court deems it just to direct the respondent to refund the amounts in question to the petitioner by taking such security as it d....