Gauhati High Court
Sonoline X-Ray And Pathological Center vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 10 August, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007(1)GLT216
JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Mr. N. Islam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.
The petitioner is the owner of a Pathological Diagnostic Center. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.12.2000 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Silchar whereby the petitioner has been asked to get himself registered under the Assam General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner is providing X-Ray and Sonography services to his clients and since he not a dealer of the X-Ray and Sonographic plates and, as such, he is not liable to get itself registered under the Act.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of All Assam Press Owners' Association and Ors. v. Commissioner of Taxes, 2003 (3) GLT 158 : (2005) 1 GLR 347. The above decision was rendered by this Court relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Rainbow Colour Laboratories Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2000) 3 SCC 385. The decision in Rainbow (supra) was doubted by the Apex Court in Associated Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, (2004) 4 SCC 598. However, in CK. Jideesh v. Union of India the Apex Court held that the Rainbow (supra) is still a good law.
3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Mr. R. Dubey has submitted that the matter has been set at rest by a three Judge' Bench of the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. . The Apex Court held:
49. We agree. After the Forty-sixth Amendment, the sale element of those contracts which are covered by the six sub-clauses of Clause (29-A) of Article 366 are separable and may be subjected to sales tax by the States under Entry 54 of List II and there is no question of the dominant nature test applying. Therefore, when in 2005 CK. Jideesh v. Union of India held that the aforesaid observations in Associated Cement were merely obiter and that Rainbow Colour Lab was still good law, it was not correct, It is necessary to note that Associated Cement did not say that in all cases of composite transactions the Forty-sixth Amendment would apply.
4. In the present case, we find there is no dispute at the Bar that the State of Assam has included X-Ray and Scan Plates in Entry No. 24 of the List with effect from 01.04.1997 and 8% tax has been prescribed. We, therefore, hold that as the decision in the Rainbow Colour Laboratories (supra) has been held to be no good law, reliance of the petitioner on the decision of this Court in Assam Press Owners' Association (supra) is misplaced as the above was passed based on the decision in Rainbow Colour Laboratories (supra).
5. In view of the three Judges' Bench decision in Bharat Sanchar Nigam (supra), the law laid down therein governs the matter at present. We, therefore, hold that the present writ petition has no merit and no case for quashing the notice is made out. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to make his submissions before the concerned authorities, who shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law.