Dr. Saraf, J.-An important question of law has arisen for determi­nation in this petition as to whether a dealer who purchased photogra­phic materials and used the same in taking photographs and supplying prints thereof to his clients, which did not amount to sale can be assessed to sales tax under the Tripura Sales Tax Acr, 1976 on any supposed sale of the materials so used on the ground that the purchases were made at a concessionel rate of tax on the strength of V forms issued under the Sales Tax Act. 2. The petitioner is proprietor of a photo studio known as M/S Studio Sen & Sen situated at Agartala. He carries on the business of,_ buying and selling photographic goods and also buying photo­graphic materials for use by him in taking photographs and supplying pants thereof to the customers or making enlargement of the photographs or making prints out of negatives supplied by his clients. A consolidated amount depending upon the work involved and the number of prints is charged from the clients- as consideration. 3. The petitioner is registered as a dealer under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, hereinafter "the Act”. The petitioner submitted his return of turnover for the periods ending 31-3-77, 31-3-78, 31-3-79, 31-3-80 and 31-3-81 showing the turnover of photographic goods sold by him in the State of Tripura. However, in the returns so submitted the amount received by him for taking photographs, developing the negatives or doing other photographic works like supply of prints etc. to the clients was not included in the turnover on the ground that there was no contract of sale of any goods and it was pure and simple indivisible works contract. In course of hearing, the petitioner, in support of his action, placed before the Superintendent of Taxes the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Assistant t ales Tax Officer vs. B. C. Kaine (1977) 39 STC 237 SC wherein the Supreme Court h id held that when photographer undertakes to take photographs, developing the negatives or to do other photographic work and thereafter supply the prints to his clients, he cannot be said to enter into a contract for sale of goods. The contract, on the contrary, is for use of skill and labour by the photographer to bring about a desired result. It was pointed out that the. The contract, on the contrary, is for use of skill and labour by the photographer to bring about a desired result. It was pointed out that the. Supreme Court had in very clear terms held that the occupation of a photographer except in so far as he sells the goods purchased by him, is essentially one of skill and labour. It was also submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court holding that no sales tax was payable on works of the nature under taken by the petitioner, there was no scopes for levying any -sales tax thereon and, as such, the receipts from such works contracts were rightly not included by him in the return of turnover. 4. The Superintendent, Taxes, however, did not follow the afore­said decision of the Supreme Court. He observed that the petitioner could not have the benefit of purchasing any material at a con­cessional rate if the goods or anything processed out of it was not saleable and on that basis held that there was no justification for leaving an amount of Rs. 1, 98, 460.44 (representing the value of purchases of materials used in preparation of photographs etc.) as non-taxable and accordingly, added the estimated sale value thereof in the taxable turnover of the petitioner. The additions made in 5 assessments for the periods ending 31.3.77, 31. 3. 78y 31.3.79, 31.3.80 and 31. 3. 81 were Rs. 12,000/-, I0t000/-, 50,000/-,64,000/-and 70,000/- respectively. 5. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders of assessment passed by the Superintendent of Taxes on the ground that the occupation of petitioner as a photographer being essentially one of skill and lobour the amount received by him on account of such works not being the amount of considerations for sale of goods, the same cannot be assessed to tax under the Act in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in B. C. Kame, supra. The contention of the petitioner is that the Superintendent of Taxes acted illegally in levying sales tax on the estimated value of such work under ­taken by him. 6- We have heard Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Majumder, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents, also perused the impugned assessment orders and the counter filed by the respondents. 6- We have heard Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Majumder, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents, also perused the impugned assessment orders and the counter filed by the respondents. Though from the "assessment order, it is not very clear as to what has been assessed to tax-the estimated value of photographs etc. supplied to the clients or the estimated value of the materials used in preparation of such photographs. However, from the counter filed on behalf of the respondents it appears that tax has been levied on the estimated sale value of the materials used in preparation of the photographs by assuming that goods imported at concessional rate of tax for resale had been disposed of by the petitioner by way of sale transaction. We have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, It is now well-settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in B. C. Kame, supra, that the occupation of a photo­grapher except in so far as he sells the goods purchased by him is essentially one of skill and labour. The admitted position in the present case is that the petitioner is a photographer by occupation. the also sells certain photographic goods purchased by him and tax has been paid in respect of sales of such goods made by him. -No tax has been paid on the amount received in respect of works contract undertaken by him as a photographer. There is also no dispute about the fact that the petitioner did not sell the materials purchased by him from outside the State at concessional rate other than those disclosed in the return. Such materials were used in preparation of photographs etc. and supply of the same to clients which amounted to works contract. On these admitted facts, the point that arises for our consideration is whether any tax can be levied under the Act on a dealer on the estimated value of materials used by him in indivisible works contracts on the ground that the same were purchased at concessional rate of tax on the strength of 'c' forms issued under the Central Sales Tax Act and that the same could not be left as non-taxable. In other words, the question for determination is whether sales tax can be levied on any supposed sale of materials used in execution of an indivisible works contract. 7. We have given our careful consideration to the aforesaid point at issue and the stand taken by the revenue. We are constrained to say that we find it extremely difficult to accept the same. It is well-settled that the statute levying tax or duties upon the citizen cannot be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used nor can their operation be enlarged so as to embrace matters not specifically mentioned therein. No tax can be levied en any dealer unless the charging provision clearly imposes the obligation. If a case does not fall within the four corners of the provisions of a taxing statute no tax can be imposed by inference. 8. In the instant case, apparently, there is no sale either of the materials used in the preparation of photographs or of the photographs itself. What is to be seen is whether in such a situation, there is any provision in the Act which empowers the authorities so levy tax on the assumed sales of certain goods on the ground that the said goods were brought by the dealer from outside the State at concessional rate of tax of free of tax by issue of 4c' forms or in other words that the goods brought at concessional rate of tax from outside the State were not used for the purposes for which they were purchased. 9. We have perused the provisions of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976. Section 3 of the Act, which is the charging section, provides int-eralia that every dealer in taxable goods shall pay tax on its turnover at the rate specified in column 3 of the schedule attached to the Act. The expression " turnover" has been defined in clause (m) of section 2 of the Act to mean the aggregate of the amount of the sale prices and "sale" and "sale price", have been defined in clauses (g) and (h) of section 2 of the Act. On a plain reading of the section 3 and the relevant definitions it is clear that tax is payable under the Act only on the amounts received or receivable in respect of "sale" of "goods'*. On a plain reading of the section 3 and the relevant definitions it is clear that tax is payable under the Act only on the amounts received or receivable in respect of "sale" of "goods'*. Unless, there is a "sale" no tax can be levied. It may, however, be apposite to mention here that after 46th Amendment of the Constitution, the Act has been amended and by the Tripura Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 1984 a new section, namely section 3 A has been inserted to provide for imposition of tax on transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contract. However, as the case in hand relates to periods prior to the coming into force of the said amendment, it is not necessary to go into the effect of the same. In the instant case, admittedly there being no sale of any goods Whatsoever, the assessing officer had no authority to levy any tax no - the "assumed sale" of the materials purchased by the petitioner and used in works contract. Such an assumption is not warranted in a taxing statute. If, according to the Assessing Officer, the goods purchased on the strength of V form issued under the Central Sales Tax Act were not used for the purposes for which they were purchased, he could have taken any action against the dealer for such misuse as might be permissible under the said Act. There is a specific provision in section 10 (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act to deal with such a situation. But that cannot be a ground for levying tax under the Tripura Sales Tax Act without there being a sale of such goods in the State of Tripura. 10. In view of what is stated above, we are of the opinion that no tax can be levied under the Tripura Sales Tax Act in respect of materials used by the petitioner as a photographer in the works contract undertaken by him as there is no "sale" of such materials in Tripura within the meaning of clause (g) of section 2 of the Act. We think that on the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in B-C-Kame, supra, the Superintendent of Taxes should not have levied tax in the manner he purported to do. We think that on the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in B-C-Kame, supra, the Superintendent of Taxes should not have levied tax in the manner he purported to do. The law laid down by the Supreme Court cannot be flouted or bye-passed by drawing distinctions between facts of the case decided by the Supreme Court and the case at hand unless such distinction materially effects the application of the principles Laid down by the Supreme Court. It may also be appropriate to mention here that it is also no more res integra that mere passing of property in an article or commodity during the course of performance of a transaction does not render it a transaction of sale. In an indivisible works contract the materials used therein become the property of the other party to the contract only on the theory of accretion and, as such no sales tax can be levied on the value of such materials. (State of Madras vs. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. (1958) 9 STC 35 SC; Carl Still vs. State of Bihar (1961) 12 STC 449 SC). The position, however, has changed since the passing of tae Constitution (46th Amendment) Act, and consequent amendment of the sales tax law concerned. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the impugned orders of assessment in so far as those relate to levy of tax on the estimated value of materials purchased by the petitioner and used in execution of works contract are not sustainable in law. We accordingly quash the same to that extent and direct the Superintendent of Taxes to delete such amounts from the turnover of the petitioner assessed therein. With the above observations and directions the petition is allowed. The respondents to pay Rs. 500/- by way of cost to the petitioner. J.M.Srivastava, J-I agree.