| Case ID |
372ca6e8-d85b-4914-967a-41315170c1f9 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Reference No. 12 of 1965 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 11, 1971 |
| Hearing Date |
Sep 21, 1971 |
| Decision |
The court held that cinematographic films are classified as movable property under the Sales Tax Act, 1951. The argument that these films should be treated as mere copyrights or actionable claims was rejected. The court emphasized that the definition of 'goods' in the Act is broad enough to include any article that can be classified as movable property, regardless of whether it is the product of skilled labor. Thus, the films leased for exhibition fall within the scope of taxable goods under the Act. The Supreme Court's intervention affirmed that the production of cinematographic films is indeed subject to sales tax, and the transfer of rights for exhibition is recognized as a sale under the Act. Consequently, the applicant was deemed liable for sales tax for the relevant accounting years. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, particularly concerning the classification of cinematographic films as 'goods' for sales tax purposes. The Sindh High Court's decision clarified that films produced for exhibition are considered movable property, thus subject to sales tax. The court rejected the notion that these films could be classified strictly as copyrights or actionable claims, stating that the law's definitions encompass all forms of movable property. The ruling emphasized the legislative intent behind the Sales Tax Act, affirming that the production and leasing of films for exhibition constitute taxable transactions. This landmark ruling highlights the intersection of intellectual property rights and taxation law, establishing a precedent in the interpretation of what constitutes 'goods' under the Sales Tax Act. The court's decision reinforces the notion that artistic works, when produced for commercial distribution and exhibition, fall within the ambit of goods and are therefore liable to sales tax, contributing to the broader discourse on taxation in the creative industries. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Qadeeruddin Ahmed, C.J.,
Muhammad Haleem, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Ali Athar for Applicant,
S. A. Nusrat for Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
Messrs Eveready Pictures, Karachi
|
| Respondents |
The Commissioner of Income Tax and Sales Tax
|
| Citations |
1972 SLD 8,
1972 PLD 243
|
| Other Citations |
Adams (Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation) v. Ru and another 46 CLR 572,
Clay v. Yates 156 ER Ex. Div. 12, p. 1123,
Robinson v. Graves 1 KB 579,
Mst. Savitri Devi v. Dwarka Bhatya and another AIR 1939 All. 305,
Noorani Cotton Corporation v. The Sales Tax Officer PLD 1965 SC 161
|
| Laws Involved |
Sales Tax Act, 1951,
General Clauses Act, 1897,
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
|
| Sections |
2(6),
2(15),
3(6)(a),
3(34),
3
|