2006 (7) TMI 631

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0,000 instead of the book figure of Rs. 3,01,483.50. In his assessment order, the CTO treated x-ray films as photographic films and levied tax at 11 per cent under section 5(1)(d) of the Act of 1941 instead of eight per cent under section 5(1)(e) of the said Act. The petitioners preferred appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, North Circle. By order dated September 14, 1995, the Assistant Commissioner did not accept the contention of the petitioners that x-ray films could not be treated as photographic films. He, however, modified the assessment order on some other ground. Against the said appellate order, the petitioner moved the West Bengal Commercial Taxes, Appellate and Revisional Board (hereinafter referred to as, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi reported in [1963] 14 STC 51 considered whether x-ray apparatus and x-ray films would come under item No. 6 of the First Schedule to the 1941 Act which covered: Photographic and other cameras and enlargers, lenses, films and plates, paper and cloth, and other parts and accessories required for use therewith. After discussing the distinguishing features of x-ray apparatus and films, the learned judge of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench at Delhi) held therein: . . . I am satisfied, therefore, that x-ray apparatus and the films, etc., which are used therewith cannot fall within item No. 6 of the First Schedule of the Act. They would fall under clause (c) of section 5(1) for which the rate wou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... welfare, it could not be the intention of the Government to tax those goods at a rate applicable to goods enlisted in Schedule II of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 which are commonly called luxury goods. The said Tribunal again followed the aforementioned decision in Siemens India Ltd. v. ACCT, Calcutta (South Circle)[1982] 15 STA 85. It is well-settled that where no particular definition or definite clue is available, the meaning as understood in common parlance should be adopted. In common parlance, x-ray films are always regarded as something different from common photographic films. A common man normally does not describe or treat x-ray films as photographic films although technically and scientifically both may be phot .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X