The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the period of limitation for passing rectification orders under Section 25-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

JUDGMENT :

S. Sujatha, J.

1. These petitions involving similar and akin issues, have been considered together and disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner has challenged the rectification orders dated 31.3.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 25A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 relating to assessment years 1989-90 and 1991-92 to 2002-2003.

3. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('Act' for short). The petitioner is engaged in the business of processing and supplying of photographs, photo prints and photo negatives. The rectification orders impugned herein are passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit). DVO-1, Bengaluru, subjecting the turnover relating to the transfer of goods involved in the works contract executed, to tax under Entry 25 of the Sixth Schedule to the Act read with Section 5B of the Act.

4. These rectification orders are passed in the backdrop of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Pro Lab and others (D.D.30.1.2015).

5. Marshalling of facts is necessary for the better understanding of the case.

Entry 25 of the Sixth Schedule to the Act reads as under:

6. The validity of this provision was challenged in the case of Keshoram Surindranath, Photo-Mag (P) Limited and others Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (LR), City Division, Bangalore and others. This Court held that entry 25 of the sixth schedule to the Act is beyond the scope of Article 366 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petitions were filed by the Government of Karnataka against the decision of Keshoram Surindranath and the same were dismissed by following the decision in Rainbow Colour Lab & another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2000) 118 STC 9 SC. On the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACC Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, (2001) 124 STC 59 SC, the Government of Karnataka issued Circular instructions. In the said ACC Limited (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the question of whether drawings, designs, diskettes, manuals etc., relating to machinery or industrial technology were "goods" which could be subjected to customs duty on their transaction value at the time of their import under the Customs Act, 1962 relying on several decisions relating to levy of sales tax observed that Rainbow Colour Lab requires consideration in the light of 46th constitutional amendment to Article 366 of the Constitution and further observed that the Rainbow Colour Lab case does not appear to be correct. In view of the said decision, the Commissioner issued instructions to the Sales Tax Authorities vide Circular No.17/03 dated 27.9.2002 stating that the earlier decision in Rainbow Colour Lab has been impliedly over ruled in ACC Limited and the Authorities under the Act are bound by the Apex Court decision in ACC Limited and accordingly directed the Authorities to levy tax under Entry 25 of Sixth Schedule in respect of transfer of property of goods involved in the execution of works contract undertaken by the photographers. On the said instructions, the Authorities subjected the turnover of transfer of property in goods involved in the processing, supplying of photographs and photos to tax under Section 5-B read with Entry 25 of the Sixth Schedule. Proceedings under Sections 12-A, 21 and 25A were initiated to bring the said transaction to tax. Being aggrieved by the same, assessees had preferred writ petitions before this Court. The said batch of writ petitions wer