IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1380 of 2001 with CWPs No. 1382 & 1383 of 2001 Date of decision: 14.08.2008 1. CWP No. 1380 of 2001: Manu Aggarwal … Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents 2. CWP No. 1382 of 2001: Harvinder Singh Kawtra … Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents 3. CWP No. 1383 of 2001: Sanjeev Sood … Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M.M. Khanna, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pushpa Attri, Advocate. (In all the cases). For the respondents: Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Central Govt. Counsel, for respondents No. 1 to 3. (In all the cases). Mr. R.M. Bisht and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals, for respondents No. 4 and 5. (In all the cases). ___________________________________________________________ Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) : All these three writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since common questions of fact and law are involved in the three cases. In all the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the imposition of 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 service tax under Finance Act, 1994 as amended by the Finance Act of 2001, on the taxable service provided by the studio or agency in relation to photography in any manner. The petitioners have also challenged the department circular dated 9.7.2001 (Ann.P-2). We are not required to give the facts of the cases or deal with the arguments raised by Mr. M.M. Khanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in detail, in view of the fact that the questions raised in these writ petitions are squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in C.K. Jidheesh Vs. Union of India and others, (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 37, whereby the Supreme Court has approved the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court rendered in Kerala Colour Lab. Assn. Vs. Union of India, (2003) 264 ITR 633. Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has dealt with this matter in great detail and held that the Union of India is entitled to levy service tax on the taxable service rendered by photography studios and agency. The Apex Court has upheld the aforesaid judgment and has held that the contracts entered into by the photographers and photographic studios are nothing else but service contracts pure and simple on tax. The contention that the contracts were for sale of goods was negatived. Keeping in view the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, there is no merit in the present writ petitions, which are disposed of in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge August 14, 2008 ( V.K. Ahuja ), (BSS) Judge 3