JUDGMENT SMT. K. K. USHA, J. - These writ petitions come before us by way of a reference as a learned single Judge found that the contentions raised by the petitioners have far reaching consequences. 2. Photography and its allied activities - a pure work of art outside the purview of works contract ? - is the question raised in these writ petitions. Where photographic cameras started clicking during the regime of Queen Victoria, much impressed by the modern gadget, the Queen expressed an apprehension to Alfred Chalon, the artist, whether photography might ruin his profession - portrait painting. He replied, "Ah, non, Madame, the photography cannot flattere". But the petitioners before us would contend that as much artistic skill and talent is required to be invested in a photograph as in a portrait painted. According to them, photography is a work of art. They quote in their support, observations made by the apex Court in Assistant Sales Tax Officer v. B. C. Kame [1977] 39 STC 237. 3. Photography is the art of fixing an optical image by photochemical means. The word photography means "drawing a picture with light'. The picture is "drawn" by the glass lens in the front of the camera and is recorded on the light sensitive chemicals on the roll of film. A surface which is sensitive to light is the most important component of photography. Even though some 2000 years ago such surfaces were used for decorative purposes in China and the effects of light on some such substances were studied by the Arabs in the Middle Ages, Europe started to take interest in this subject only by about 1550. It was at that time "camera obscura" had been fitted with a lens by Giambattista della Porta. The modern word camera for a photographic apparatus is derived from the Latin "camera obscura" meaning "darkened room". Research was going on as to how the images coming through the lens could be fixed, and this became theoretically possible when J.H. Schulze observed the blackening of silver salts by sunlight in 1727. Further developments were made in this area by the research of K.W. Scheele and William Lewis and thereafter by Thomas Wedgwood. Research was going on as to how the images coming through the lens could be fixed, and this became theoretically possible when J.H. Schulze observed the blackening of silver salts by sunlight in 1727. Further developments were made in this area by the research of K.W. Scheele and William Lewis and thereafter by Thomas Wedgwood. It was in 1835, William H. Fox Talbot who was trained as a scientist at Cambridge University discovered that the blackening could be stopped by washing pictures in brine and then could make positive print out of it. During the same period, J. Nicephore Niepce, a French Officer and Louis Jacques Mande Danguerre were experimenting on this subject in France. In 1837, Daguerre developed a really satisfactory photographic process and it was called the "daguerreotype". The full rights to the above invention were sold to the French Government in the year 1839 by Daguerre and Niepce' son in return for an annuity for life. On August 19th, the French Government published the full working details of the daguerreotype. Coming to know about the above work carried on by Daguerre, Talbot published his "photogenic drawing process" and subsequently explained his technique in full detail to the members of the Royal Society. That was six months before the French Government published the working directions for the Daguerreotype. This, in short, is the early history of photography. 4. During the subsequent years, research continued for a perfect system of fixing the image. Along with that remarkable advances were made in shortening the time of exposure. Thus, from 30 to 60 minutes of the early daguerreotype, it is reduced to a fraction of a second. So also, the size of the apparatus required for taking photographs became reduced as years of research went by. During the early days of commercial photographs, several porters were required to carry the necessary equipment when photographs were to be taken at places away from the studio. During the later years, its weight was reduced to a pack weighing about 40 Ibs to be carried on the back with a tripod which could be used as a walking stick also. Those were the days of wet plates. Cameras of modern times are of such small size that they can be kept in a shirt pocket. During the later years, its weight was reduced to a pack weighing about 40 Ibs to be carried on the back with a tripod which could be used as a walking stick also. Those were the days of wet plates. Cameras of modern times are of such small size that they can be kept in a shirt pocket. The question is, after all these technical developments making most of the function which were done manually during the early days now achieved automatically, can it be still claimed that photography is a work of art ? 5. The petitioners are engaged in photographic work and are also dealers in photographic goods. As far as assessment on the turnover in respect of sale of photographic goods, no objection is raised by the petitioners. But, according to then, when they take photographs of their customers, develop the negatives and handover positive prints to the customers or when they develop the exposed negatives brought by the customers and supply them positive prints, or when they take positive prints from the negatives brought by the customers, the contract between them and the customer is for service by the photographer to bring about a desired result and no part of the contract is exigible to sales tax. According to them, the 46th Constitutional amendment has not brought about any change in the matter of exigibility to sales tax as far as photographic work is concerned from the position as it obtained at the time of the decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Sales Tax Officer v. B. C. Kame [1977] 39 STC 237. We must make it clear that the above was the only question argued before us by the petitioners, even though they have challenged the 46th amendment of the Constitution and certain provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and Rules relating to the computation of value of the property in the goods transferred in the execution of works contract. 6. The challenge against the constitutional amendment is no longer available to the petitioners in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Builders Association of India v. Union of India [1989] 73 STC 370. 6. The challenge against the constitutional amendment is no longer available to the petitioners in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Builders Association of India v. Union of India [1989] 73 STC 370. A Full Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the validity of rule 8(4) (prior to the amendment effected by S.R.O. 92 of 1991 dated January 19, 1991) in Moidoo v. State of Kerala [1995] 97 STC 1 supra; (1994) 2 KLT 251 . This Court directed all the authorities under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act not to resort to rule 8(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules as it stood prior to the amendment effected by S.R.O. 92 of 1991 or to pursue with any action already adopted in exercise of the said sub-rule. 7. The question thus arising for consideration is whether, in the activities carried on by the petitioners, any works contract is involved, thus making a portion of their business turnover exigible to sales tax in view of the 46th amendment to the Constitution and the consequential amendments to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and Rules. The activities carried on by the petitioners can be generally categorised as follows : (1) They take photograph of their customers, develop the negative and supply positive prints in the desired size to the customers, (2) they develop the exposed film brought by the customers, take positive prints from them and supply the negative and the prints in the desired size to the customers, (3) they take positive prints from the negative brought by the customers and supply the prints in the desired size to the customers, along with their negative. In cases coming under second and third category, they may be undertaking the work of enlarging the photo prints also. According to the petitioners, just like painting a portrait is a contract for skill and labour the contract between them and their customers is solely a contract of skill and labour and not a works contract. The photo prints supplied to the customer by the photographers are not marketable commodity. As goods, they have no value. Therefore, no part of the turnover of the petitioners' business shall be brought under the charging section of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 8. The photo prints supplied to the customer by the photographers are not marketable commodity. As goods, they have no value. Therefore, no part of the turnover of the petitioners' business shall be brought under the charging section of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 8. In B. C. Kame's case [1977] 39 STC 237 the Supreme Court considered the question whether there is an incident of sale of goods in a contract for photographic work and it was held as follows : "........... When a photographer like the respondent undertakes to take photograph, develop the negative, or do other photographic work and thereafter supply the prints to his client, 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. The occupation of a photographer, except in so far as he sells the goods purchased by him, in our opinion, is essentially one of skill and labour. A good photograph reveals not only the aesthetic sense and artistic faculty of the photographer, but it also reflects his skill and labour. A good photograph in most cases is indeed a thing of beauty. It not only seeks to mirror and portray a scene from actual life, but it also catches and preserves for the future what belongs to and is a part of the fleeting moment. The ravage brought about by the passage of time, the decay and the edging process which inevitably set in as the years roll by leave what is preserved in the photograph unaffected. It is no wonder that an old photograph revives nostalgic memories of days no more, but to which we look back through the mist of time with fondness even though such fondness has a tinge of sadness. We, therefore, find no cogent ground to disagree with the High Court in so far as it has decided against the revenue and has held the contract to be one for work and labour." 9. We, therefore, find no cogent ground to disagree with the High Court in so far as it has decided against the revenue and has held the contract to be one for work and labour." 9. It is contended by the petitioners that the change which is brought about by the 46th constitutional amendment by incorporating clause (29A)(b) to article 366 and the consequential statutory amendments would not make any difference as far as photographic work is concerned since the use of material in the case of photographic work is only incidental to a service contract. The activity carried on by the petitioners would not come within the purview of works contract and therefore the constitutional amendment does not give power to the State Legislature to bring in photographic work within the net of sales tax. 10. In the year 1982, Parliament passed the 46th Amendment amending the Constitution in several respects in order to bring many of the transactions in which property in goods passed but are not considered as sales for the purpose of levy of sales tax within the scope of the power of State to levy sales tax. In State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd. [1958] 9 STC 353, the Supreme Court held that a works contract was an indivisible contract and the turnover of the goods used in the execution of the works contract would not become exigible to sales tax. Sub-clause (b) of clause (29A) under article 366, which reads as follows is incorporated to overcome the effect of the above decision : "(29A) 'tax on the sale or purchase of goods' includes - (b) a tax on the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract;" Thus, after the 46th amendment, the works contract which was an indivisible one, is by a legal fiction altered into a contract which is divisible into one for sale of goods and the other for supply of labour and service, enabling the States to levy sales tax on value of goods involved in a works contract. The 46th amendment was followed by consequential amendments in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Rules made thereunder. The 46th amendment was followed by consequential amendments in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Rules made thereunder. The definitions of the terms "dealer', "goods", "sale", "total turnover", etc., as contained in section 2(viii), (xii), (xxi), (xxvi) were suitably amended taking in works contract also in its purview. The word "works contract" is defined under section 2(xxix)(a) as follows : "'Works contract' includes any agreement for carrying out for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration the construction, fitting out, improvement, repair, manufacture, processing, fabrication, erection, installation, modification or commissioning of any movable or immovable property." 11. It is contended by the petitioners that none of the three categories of the photographic work undertaken by them, would come within the term "works contract" as defined in the Act as it does not involve construction, fitting out, improvement, repair, manufacture, processing, fabrication, erection, installation, modification or commissioning of any movable or immovable property. The contract between them and the customer is only that of skill and labour in the nature of a service contract. Passing of property in the photographic paper while handing over the positive prints is only incidental to the contract of service and that the concept of the deemed sale has no application in the nature of the transaction. A customer approaching a photographer to take photos and get the photo prints, has no intention of buying a photograph. Apart from the above, it is contended that the general test in relation to a works contract is also not satisfied in the instant case. Peculiar character of a works contract is that such a contract is for execution of certain works in relation to pre-existing immovable or movable property. The question of works contract would not arise when the transaction does not relate to basic goods or a nucleus in relation to which some works have to be executed. "The goods" means property of a person other than the contractor with reference to which a works contract should be executed. According to the petitioners, the 46th Amendment makes it possible for the State to levy sales tax only on the price of goods and materials used in works contracts as if there was a sale of such goods and materials and not on the value of the materials used incidentally in a service contract. According to the petitioners, the 46th Amendment makes it possible for the State to levy sales tax only on the price of goods and materials used in works contracts as if there was a sale of such goods and materials and not on the value of the materials used incidentally in a service contract. Since the works carried on by the petitioners do not come within the definition of "works contract" under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and by applying general tests also it cannot be treated as a works contract, no portion of their turnover can be made exigible to sales tax. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied on two decisions of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sreeni Printers [1987] 67 STC 279; (1987) 1 KLT 843 and Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dr. Paran's Dental Laboratories [1987] 67 STC 249. In the first case, it was held that the occupation of a photo block-maker is essentially a work of skill and labour and no sale is involved so as to make the turnover exigible to sales tax. In the second case, the question arose whether preparation of artificial denture for a customer would amount to sale. It was held that such an activity is within the area of contract of skill and labour and no sale is involved. The denture prepared for a customer is not a marketable commodity. Reliance was also placed in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Vidyarambham Press & Book Depot [1985] 58 STC 322. In the above case, the assessee - a printer, supplied letter heads, visiting cards, bill books, account books, etc., to a customer in pursuance of an order placed by him. It was held that the transactions were in the nature of works contracts. The petitioners quoted in support of their contention, a decision of the Orissa High Court in Photo Emporium v. Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack [1990] 77 STC 199 which related to photographic work and which followed the Supreme Court decision in Kame's case [1977] 39 STC 237. We find none of these decisions will be of any help to the petitioners for two reasons. Firstly, in none of these cases, the assessees had taken a contention that their activities would not come within works contract. We find none of these decisions will be of any help to the petitioners for two reasons. Firstly, in none of these cases, the assessees had taken a contention that their activities would not come within works contract. Their endeavor was to establish that there was no sale of goods taking place as part of the transactions. Secondly, these decisions were rendered before the 46th constitutional amendment which had the effect of disintegrating an indivisible works contract. 13. It is the case of the Revenue that the photographic work undertaken by the petitioners would directly come within the term "works contract". The photographer's work is not based exclusively on his artistic skill. Even if it is admitted for arguments sake that for taking good photograph, some amount of skill is necessary, it is not so in the case of the further processing or taking positive prints or additional copies, especially due to the availability of highly sophisticated cameras and other accessories used by the photographers in their work. When photograph is taken and positive prints are delivered to the customer, there is transfer of property in goods, namely, the photographic paper. The cost of the paper may differ according to its quality, but it is something which can be computed for the purpose of working out the value of the property transferred in the course of execution of works contract. Therefore, according to the Revenue, the petitioners are bound to pay tax on the value of the photographic paper which forms part of their turnover. 14. It is now well-established by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court after the 46th Amendment to the Constitution in Builders Association of India v. Union of India [1989] 73 STC 370, Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan [1993] 88 STC 204 and Builders' Association of India v. State of Karnataka [1993] 88 STC 248 that it is competent for the State Legislature to impose tax on transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract. The petitioners can escape liability only if they are able to establish that the photographic work done by them will not come within the term "works contract". 15. In the light of the above, we will now examine whether the three categories of activities carried on by the petitioners in photographic work would come within "works contract". The petitioners can escape liability only if they are able to establish that the photographic work done by them will not come within the term "works contract". 15. In the light of the above, we will now examine whether the three categories of activities carried on by the petitioners in photographic work would come within "works contract". The first category is where the photographer takes a photograph of the customer, develops the negative, takes positive prints and delivers the prints to the customer. Here, the photographer uses his own camera and his own film. The negative which is subjected to further processing belongs to the photographer and not to the customer. No basic goods are provided by the customer which were subjected to processing, etc., by the photographer so as to make the contract one in the nature of works contract. There is no accretion to goods or the property or nucleus of a property which originally belonged to the customer. Blackburn, J., in Appleby v. Myers (1867) LR 2 CP 651 at page 659 stated as follows : "Materials worked by one into the property of another become part of that property. This is equally true, whether it be fixed or movable property. Bricks built into a wall become part of the house; thread stitched into a coat which is under repair, or planks and nails and pitch worked into a ship under repair, become part of the coat or the ship." By applying the above test, it cannot be held that there is any works contract involved in the first category of petitioners' activity. It cannot also be treated as sale of the photograph for the reason that it is not the intention of the customer to buy a photograph from the photographer. The photograph has no marketable value. 16. The development achieved in the field of photography during the last about hundred and fifty years is tremendous. When the Daguerreotype portrait was exhibited in Paris in 1839 and later in 1840 in Berlin and New York it is true that like an epidemic which was called by the press as "Daguerreotypemania", the idea of photography spread on both sides of Atlantic. When the Daguerreotype portrait was exhibited in Paris in 1839 and later in 1840 in Berlin and New York it is true that like an epidemic which was called by the press as "Daguerreotypemania", the idea of photography spread on both sides of Atlantic. But, it would have been an agony for the sitter for a daguerreotype portrait to go through the process of being photographed and the skill and patience required of the photographer was also of a very high quality. The sitter for daguerreotype portrait had to remain perfectly still for half an hour, or sometime, up to one hour and the photographer's chairs were devised in such a way that the subject was prevented from moving his head by a set of three adjustable points, one at each side behind the ears and one behind the head. From this agonising procedure, photography has travelled a long path and it is now possible to take a photograph within a split of a second. Modern cameras have the facility of autofocussing and it would even refuse to open its eyes if the light is not sufficient. Does it mean that the important part played by the human agency, the photographer, is completely eliminated so that it can no more be claimed that photography is a work of art ? We do not consider so. However modernised the camera, be, the skill of the photographer is still important for getting the best results. The advice tendered by Alfred Stieglitz about a century back in his article, "The Hand Camera - Its present importance" is still relevant. He stated : "Choose your subject, regardless of figures, and carefully study the lines and lighting. After having determined upon these watch the passing figures and await the moment in which everything is in balance; that is, satisfies your eye. This often means hours of patient waiting. My picture, 'Fifth Avenue, Winter' is the result of a three hours' stand during a fierce snow-storm on February 2nd, 1893, awaiting the proper moment." Edward Weston, acknowledged as an eminent photographer in California, expressed his view in 1924 as to how a camera has to be used : "The camera should be used for a recording of life, for rendering the very substance and quintessence of the thing itself, whether it be polished steel or palpitating flesh." He was having a theory of previsualization. He wrote in 1934 : "The conception must be seen and felt on the camera groundglass complete in every detail; all values, textures, exact dimensions must be considered once for all, for with the shutter's release the isolated image becomes unalterably fixed. Developing the negative and making the final print, completes the original conception. This is the procedure in straight, real photography." If the above are the principles to be followed by a photographer, the argument that photography is a work of art and what is required of the photographer is his skill and talent, cannot but be accepted. 17. What is expected from the photographer in the first category of work we have no hesitation to hold is his service, in his artistic skill and talent. If any property passes to the customer in the form of photographic paper, it is only incidental to the service contract. We, therefore, find that no portion of the turnover of the petitioners relating to the first category of work would he exigible to sales tax. 18. The second and third categories of work can be considered together. The petitioners undertake to develop exposed film handed over by the customer and take positive print. They also receive processed negative from the customer, and take positive prints therefrom. In these two cases, the developed negatives along with the positive prints are delivered to the customers. Sometimes, the work of enlargement is also taken up along with the above work. When such a work is done by the photographer, can it be said that there is no movable property of a person other than photographer with reference to which the work is executed ? The property is the exposed film in the second category and the developed negative in the third category, which belong to the customer and which is handed over to the photographer to work upon it. The petitioners would contend that developing an exposed roll of film and taking positive prints therefrom would not come within any of the activities mentioned in the definition of "works contract" under section 2(xxix)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 19. According to the petitioners, the negative film being the original goods, it is not undergoing any improvement or enhancement in its value by the process or treatment employed thereto by the photographer. 19. According to the petitioners, the negative film being the original goods, it is not undergoing any improvement or enhancement in its value by the process or treatment employed thereto by the photographer. The negative remains as before even after the process and the treatment. Since the negative remains intact at the end of the entire transaction and nothing was added or employed to it to increase its value, utility or beauty, there could be no works contract. 20. We are not inclined to accept the above contention for two reasons. Firstly, the definition of works contract under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is an inclusive definition. Therefore, it cannot be taken that the activities referred therein are the only activities which can be subject-matter of works contract. Secondly, the work done by the petitioners in the second and third categories would certainly come within the activity "processing" referred in the definition. Admittedly, in order to develop an exposed roll of film certain processing has necessarily to be undergone, so also for taking positive prints out of it. Processing is necessary for taking positive prints from a negative handed over by the customer. In any view of the matter, taking positive prints out of the developed negative which is an allied activity to the processing of exposed film would certainly come within the definition of "works contract". 21. By applying the test of accretion to the nucleus also, we are of the view that the second and third categories would come within works contract since the photographer is working upon the exposed film or the negative supplied by the customer and produce the positive prints in the desired size. We are also not inclined to accept the contention that while carrying on the above activity of processing an exposed roll of film and taking positive prints therefrom, it is the artistic talent or skill of the petitioners that is of utmost importance. The photo was already taken. The artistic talent or skill which is required to take a good photograph is thus already invested by someone other than the petitioners. It may be that the technical know-how, experience and the skill of the photographer or the person who is processing the film and taking the positive prints are also of importance to get a good print. The artistic talent or skill which is required to take a good photograph is thus already invested by someone other than the petitioners. It may be that the technical know-how, experience and the skill of the photographer or the person who is processing the film and taking the positive prints are also of importance to get a good print. But, it cannot be compared to the artistic skill or talent necessary for taking a good photograph or painting a good portrait. In B. C. Kame's case [1977] 39 STC 237 the Supreme Court considered only the first category of work, namely, taking a photograph of the customer developing the negative and taking a positive print. The second and third type of activities were not specifically considered by the Supreme Court. Therefore, we are of the view that in the nature of the activities under the second and third categories, they would come within the fold of works contract and not contract of service. 22. In O.P. No. 892 of 1988, a statement showing the rate at which photographic work coming under the categories one and two are charged in petitioner's studio is filed. For taking a photograph in post card size during the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87, the petitioner charged at the rate of Rs. 40, Rs. 45, and Rs. 50 respectively. Out of the above, value of photographic paper would come to Rs. 3.06, Rs. 3.33 and Rs. 4.12 respectively. For taking passport size photograph, petitioner charged during 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87, at the rate of Rs. 25, Rs. 30 and Rs. 35. The value of photographic paper would come to Rs. 1.91, Rs. 2.22 and Rs. 2.88 respectively. The above would clearly show that the value of photographic paper is so minimal that it can be treated as incidental to the contract of service entered into by the petitioner with the customer. But, when it comes to the case of film developing and taking positive prints, the picture is different. Per roll, the petitioner charged for post card size photographs during the years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 at the rate of Rs. 92, Rs. 100 and Rs. 110 respectively. Out of the above, the value of paper would come to Rs. 36.80, Rs. 40 and Rs. 49.50 respectively. This would show that about 40 per cent. Per roll, the petitioner charged for post card size photographs during the years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 at the rate of Rs. 92, Rs. 100 and Rs. 110 respectively. Out of the above, the value of paper would come to Rs. 36.80, Rs. 40 and Rs. 49.50 respectively. This would show that about 40 per cent. of the total turnover of the petitioner on this item of activity covers the value of the photographic paper, the property in which is transferred to the customer and it would justify our conclusion that the turnover of the petitioner to the extent of the value of the photographic paper involved in the second and third type of activity of the petitioners is exigible to sales tax. Revenue did not contend before us and it cannot contend also in the light of the decision in [1993] 88 STC 204 (SC) (Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan) that the value of the chemicals utilised for the purpose of processing the film and taking positive print and the service charges should be brought under the taxable turnover of the petitioners. 23. We, therefore, hold that as far as the first category of activity of the petitioners is concerned, no portion of the turnover is exigible to sales tax. But, in respect of categories 2 and 3 to the extent of the value of the photographic paper, there is passing of property in the course of execution of a works contract and thus a deemed sale making it exigible to sales tax. We make it clear that the petitioners also will be entitled to the benefit of the direction given by a Full Bench of this Court in Moidoo v. State of Kerala [1995] 97 STC 1 supra; (1994) 2 KLT 251 , that the authorities under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act will not resort to rule 8(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules as it stood prior to the amendment effected by S.R.O. 92 of 1991 or to pursue with any action already taken in exercise of the said sub-rule. 24. Assessment orders for different periods are under challenge in these original petitions. The petitioners challenge demand notices also. 24. Assessment orders for different periods are under challenge in these original petitions. The petitioners challenge demand notices also. In the light of our finding as above, we set aside these assessment orders and direct the assessing authorities to proceed with the assessment afresh, in the light of the observations and directions contained in this judgment as well as the judgment of the Full Bench in Moidoo's case (19951 97 STC 1 (Ker) supra; (1994) 2 KLT 251 . In O.P. Nos. 892 and 971 of 1988, petitioners have taken an additional contention that being small-scale industrial units, they are entitled to certain exemptions from payment of sales tax. These aspects will also be considered by the assessing authority at the time of finalising their assessment. The rate and point at which tax can be levied in respect of the material involved in the deemed sale are also matters to be considered by the assessing authority. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions in [1993] 88 STC 204 (Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan) and [1993] 88 STC 248 (Builders' Association of India v. State of Karnataka) will be kept in mind by the assessing authorities while finalising the assessment orders. The original petitions stand partly allowed as above. Petitions partly allowed.