ORDER The Petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus to the Respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 1,62,23,677/- collected from the Petitioner relating to Assessment Years 1989-90 to 1994-95 and 1996-97 to 1998-99 together with statutory interest. It is not in dispute that the amounts in question came to be paid by the Petitioner by way of tax demanded towards the photographic activities. The demand for the refund of the said amounts is on account of the judicial pronouncement that the photographic activities are not a sale, but only a Contract of Work. Sri G. Sarangan, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Sri Keshavamurthy, for the Petitioner submits that the issue is no more res integra. He brings to my notice the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Keshoram Surindranath Photo-Mag (Private) Limited and Others v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (LR), City Division, Bangalore and Others, 2001 (50) Kar. L.J. 382 (HC) (DB) : (2001) 121 STC 175 (Kar.) (DB). The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow : "31. Photography is a process or an art of producing visible images on sensitive bodies by action of light or other form of radiant energy. Duration of action of light and also use of the chemical is highly a technical expertise therefore taking into consideration the various decisions referred to above, it could be considered that it is a Works Contract where property which is transferred in paper is only incidental to such contract. In strict sense, it is a service where the main object is not transfer of property in goods. The good photograph as observed by the Apex Court is a thing of beauty and revives nostalgic memories. It is a work of art. In Assistant Sales Tax Officer and Others v. B. C. Kame, (1977) 39 STC 237 (SC) : AIR 1977 SC 1642 : (1977) 1 SCC 634 , it has already been held that there is no sale involved and in spite of the fact that it is a Works Contract it could not be subjected to tax because the intention of the parties is not to transfer the goods in the execution of said Works Contract. It is only ancillary and incidental to Service Contract. The photographs are not marketable or saleable commodity and as such no tax can be levied. It is only ancillary and incidental to Service Contract. The photographs are not marketable or saleable commodity and as such no tax can be levied. Entry 25 of the Sixth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, therefore is beyond the scope of Article 366 of the Constitution of India". Nextly, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in the case of Rainbow Colour Lab and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2000) 21 MTJ 490 : (2000) 118 STC 9 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 808 : (2000) 2 SCC 385 , wherein it is held that taking photographs, developing negative films, supplying prints, etc. are all in the nature of Service Contract and do not involve the sale of goods. Sri Sarangan strenuously brings to my notice that the considered view taken by the Division Bench Judgment in the case of Keshoram is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by its order, dated 20.4.2000 passed in SLP Nos. 6136 to 6163 of 2000. Nextly, he also brings to my notice the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Golden Colour Lab and Studio, Bangalore v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, (2003) 55 Kar. L.J. 129 (HC) (DB) wherein the earlier view taken in Keshoram's case is reiterated. He also brings to my notice the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Pro Lab, Mangalore and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2005) 59 Kar. L.J. 410 (HC) (DB) wherein the re-introduction of Entry No. 25 in its same old form, when there is no change in the law as pronounced by the Apex Court, is held to be unsustainable and unconstitutional. Sri Sarangan, with reference to the decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Colour Labs, Mysore v. State of Karnataka and Others, (2006) 60 Kar. L.J. 53 (HC) : (2008) 11 VST 621 (Kar.) raises the argument that the non-refunding of the amounts in question can have no justification whatsoever. He also brought to my notice the Unreported decision of this Court on 17.1.2006 passed in W.P. No. 44191 of 2004 and connected petitions, wherein a direction came to be issued to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to take a decision in the matter of refund of the amounts in terms of the order passed in Suresh Colour Labs case. He also brought to my notice the Unreported decision of this Court on 17.1.2006 passed in W.P. No. 44191 of 2004 and connected petitions, wherein a direction came to be issued to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to take a decision in the matter of refund of the amounts in terms of the order passed in Suresh Colour Labs case. The learned Senior Counsel also complains of violation of Article 14, as the similarly placed parties, namely, Suresh and R.K. Colour Labs are already given the refunds. Sri K. M. Shivayogiswamy, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents submits that a similar matter is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1145 of 2006 (Annexure - F). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the Interim Order on 19.11.2007, which is as follows. - "Meanwhile, the Authorities may make the Assessment but no coercive steps will be taken to recover the tax from the Respondents (herein)". In view of the granting of this Interim Order, the Respondents are not obliged to refund the amounts, is the emphatic submission of the Government Pleader. He also submits that the Respondents have initiated suo motu revision proceedings and that only on their conclusion the Petitioner's liability to pay the tax can be exactly quantified. He submits that he has no instructions as to whether the amounts were refunded to Suresh and R.K. Colour Labs, He further submits that if this Court is inclined to give a direction to the Respondents to refund the amounts, the liberty be reserved to the Respondents to insist for the furnishing of the Bank Guarantee or any Security to the satisfaction of the Respondent 1. In the course of the rejoinder arguments, the Petitioner's learned Advocate, Sri Keshavamurthy submits that amounts are definitely refunded to Suresh and R.K. Colour Labs without taking any Bank Guarantee. Sri K. M. Shivayogiswamy, the learned High Court Government Pleader quickly joins issue with the Petitioner's side stating that refund, if any, was prior to the passing of the order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 19.11.2007. The perusal of the Order Sheet, dated 1.6.2010 reveals that the learned Government Advocate sought time to obtain appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the order, dated 19.11.2007 is not categorical insofar as the refund is concerned. The perusal of the Order Sheet, dated 1.6.2010 reveals that the learned Government Advocate sought time to obtain appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the order, dated 19.11.2007 is not categorical insofar as the refund is concerned. Four weeks' time came to be granted to the Respondents to obtain appropriate orders insofar as the entitlement or otherwise of the Petitioner is concerned. Thereafter, two months have elapsed. The Respondents have not obtained any further interim orders from the Apex Court. The plain reading of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Interim Order, dated 19.11.2007 makes it clear that the Authorities will make the Assessment, but no coercive steps will be taken to recover the tax. The letter and spirit of this order is that if the tax are not yet recovered from the Petitioner, it is not open to the Respondents to recover it coercively. If it is already recovered, as happened in this case, there is no legal impediment in directing the Respondent 1 to refund the amount. The case-law, to which my attention is elaborately drawn by Sri Sarangan, is that the photographic activities of processing and supplying the photo prints, photo negatives, is not a sale. The re-introduction of Entry No. 25 of Sixth Schedule of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 is already held to be unsustainable and unconstitutional. In similar matters, this Court has already given a direction to the Government to decide the case of the Assessee for the refund of amounts in the light of the decision in the case of Suresh Colour Labs. Thus considering legal and factual matrix of the case, this Court deems it just to direct the Respondent to refund the amounts in question to the Petitioner by taking such security as it deems fit. Further, the refund shall also be subject to the outcome of the Civil Appeal No. 1145 of 2006. It is trite position in law that the similarly placed parties are to be treated similarly. The standard of security to be insisted for by the Respondent 1 shall not be more onerous than that ones taken from Suresh and R.K. Colour Labs. It is trite position in law that the similarly placed parties are to be treated similarly. The standard of security to be insisted for by the Respondent 1 shall not be more onerous than that ones taken from Suresh and R.K. Colour Labs. At this juncture, Sri K. M. Shivayogiswamy, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that it should be left open to the Respondent 1 to take proper security in this case because, in the earlier cases of Suresh and R.K. Colour Labs, the refund, if any, came to be made when the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not seized of the matter. Appreciating the stand of the Government, this Court expressly reserves the liberty to the Respondent 1 to insist for the Indemnity Bond or the depositing of title deeds of an unencumbered property. The Respondent 1 shall examine the claim of the Petitioner for the payment of statutory interest. The time for compliance with this order is one month from the date of the production of the certified copy of today's order. These Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.