(1.) The principal question to be decided in these matters is the nature of the transaction by which mobile phone connections are enjoyed. Is it a sale or is it a service or is it both If it is a sale then the States are legislatively competent to levy sales tax on the transaction under Entry 54 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. If it is a service then the Central Government alone can levy service tax under Entry 97 of List I (or Entry 92c of List I after 2003). And if the nature of the transaction partakes of the character of both sale and service, then the moot question would be whether both legislative authorities could levy their separate taxes together or only one of them.
(2.) The contenders are the service providers on the one hand and the States on the other. It is the case of the service providers (who are for the purposes of convenience referred to in this judgment as "petitioners" irrespective of the capacity in which they are arraigned in the several matters before us) that there is no sale transaction involved and that the attempt of the several States to levy tax on the provision of mobile phone facilities by them to subscribers was constitutionally incompetent. It is their case that the transaction in question was merely a service and that the Union Government alone was competent to levy tax thereon.
(3.) They are supported in their stand by the union Government.