( 1 ) ALL these Writ Petitions are referred to the Division Bench, by a Learned Judge of this Court in terms of an order dated 3. 3. 2004. All these Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) FACTS in W. P. Nos. 8602 and 8603-24/2004: the petitioners are carrying on the business at different places within the State of Karnataka. They are registered as dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act' ). The petitioners operate photographic studios and are engaged in providing service to customers for processing and supplying photographs, photo prints and photo negatives. The petitioners submit that Section 5-B of the Act provides for levy of tax on the taxable turnover relating to transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contracts that are specified in the 6th schedule to the Act. Entry No. 25 of this Schedule as it was enforced up to 6. 9. 1999 specified works contracts relating to 'processing and supplying photographs, photo prints, photo negatives' and during different years prescribed rate of tax at 8% and 10%. A Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated 6. 9. 1999 Keshoram Surindranath Photo-Mag (P) Ltd. , and Ors. v. Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (LR), City Division, Bangalore and Ors. , (2001) 121 STC 175 declared Entry 25 of the 6th Schedule to the Act which specified the works contract of 'processing and supplying photographs, photo prints and photo negatives' and also prescribed rate of basic tax payable, as beyond the scope of Article 366 of the Constitution of India. The special Leave petition filed by the State was dismissed on 20. 4. 2000.

( 3 ) LATER the Supreme Court rendered a Judgment in the case of Rainbow Colour Lab and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. , (2000) 118 STC 9 that the work carried out by M/s. Rainbow colour Lab was only in the nature of service contract not involving any sale of goods and therefore it was not liable to sales tax. The activities carried on by the petitioners are identical with those of Rainbow Colour Lab as also in the case of Keshoram Surindranath Photo Mag (P) ltd. , declaring Entry No. 25 of the 6th Schedule to the Act as beyond the scope of Article 366 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the activity of the petitioners as regards of 'processing and supplying photographs, photo prints' and the amounts received in connection with the said activity do not fall within the ambit of Section 5-B of the Act and that it does not attract any tax as these activities do not amount to 'sales; as defined under Article 366 (29a) of the Constitution of India. The State lacks legislative competence to levy sales tax on the activities carried on by the petitioners. The petitioners say that despite the above legal position, assessment orders were passed and endorsements were issued in respect of the petitioners' concern in obedience to circular instructions issued by the Commissioner for Commercial Taxes. It was the case of the state that the Supreme Court in ACC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 124 STC 59 has over ruled the decision in 118 STC 9. The endorsements issued to the petitioners were challenged and also the Circular instructions by way of Writ Petitions in this Court. A Division Bench of this court allowed the Writ Petition by way of an order dated 30. 7. 2003 reported in Golden Colour labs and Studio and Ors. v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, ILR 2003 Kar 4883. This court while quashing the aforesaid circular and all orders and endorsements issued a declaration that the decision in Keshoram Surindranath Photo-Mag (P) Ltd. , rendered on 6. 9. 1999 and affirmed by the Supreme Court holding that Entry-25, VI Schedule of the Act is unconstitutional for want of legislative competence, continues to be binding on the State Government.

( 4 ) THE petitioners say that the State Government in the meanwhile proceeded to enact the karnataka Taxation Laws Act, 2004 which came into force with