INTERNATIONAL RADIO CO BOMBAY Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants deal in radios, their spare parts, gramophones, refrigerators and what have been variously described as X-ray machines, apparatus for taking X-ray photographs, X-ray equipments and X-ray apparatus by the authorities below. THE point in dispute in this application concerns the last mentioned class of articles. THE applicants sold 11 such articles for a total sum of Rs. 1,17,238-12-0 between 29th April, 1952, and 25th October, 1952. THEy have been held by the authorities below to be liable to the special tax under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act of 1946 and entry No. 4 in Schedule I to the Act. THE material part of sub-section (1) of section 6 reads as follows :- "THE tax payable by a dealer under this Act shall consist of (b) a special tax at the rate of one anna in the rupee levied on his taxable turnover in respect of sales or supplies of goods specified in Schedule I." If the sales in question are not covered by entry No. 4 in Schedule I, they would be liable to only the general tax, i.e., to one half of an anna in the rupee on the taxable turnover. Entry No. 4 in Schedule I reads thus :- "Cinematographic, photographic and other cameras, projectors and enlargers; lenses and other parts of and accessories to such cameras, projectors and enlargers and films, plates, paper and cloth required for use therewith." In March, 1951, the Government of Bombay issued a book called the Bombay Sales Tax Hand Book for the use of dealers and other persons affected by the Bombay Sales Tax Act of 1946. In Appendix A to the said Hand Book, it was stated that there had been some difficulty regarding the scope of the various entries in Schedules I and II as to whether particular items would or would not fall within their purview; accordingly, explanations were added to the entries showing which classes of articles were included in the entries and which classes were not so included. THE following articles were stated to be included in entry No. 4 : "Flash lights; Flash light batteries and flash light bulbs; X-ray films; Apparatus for taking X-ray photographs; Speaker system and amplifier when sold along with the projector and its accessories as a composite unit; Cinema projector carbons." Thus Government appear to have taken the view that apparatus for taking X-ray photographs and X-ray films were included in entry No. 4. We are not concerned with X-ray films, but with certain machines which have been variously described as above, and which are intended to be used not only for taking radiographs but also for fluoroscopic purposes and for purposes of radiological therapy. THE crucial words in this case are "other cameras" used in entry No. 4, i.e., the question is whether in the expression "cinematographic, photographic and other cameras", the words "other cameras" should be held to include articles like those under consideration in the present case. In the appeal against the assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer, 'D' Ward, Bombay, it was contended on behalf of the applicants that although articles like mass radiographic or flouroscopic cameras might be included in entry 4, there was no justification for including X-ray apparatus in the said entry, for such an apparatus consisted of a control, a filament, transformer, a high tension transformer and an X-ray tube incorporated in a vaccum tube, an equipment which generates X-ray which have the property of activiting (sic) suitable sensitive material and registering an image either for viewing or for shadowgraphy, which functions are quite distinct from those of a photographic camera. It was also urged that as these X-ray apparatuses were generally used by medical practitioners, it could not be the intention of the Government to tax them at the rate of special tax. THE Assistant Collector of Sales Tax who heard the appeal, however, relied on the clarification of the entry in question given in the Bombay Sales Tax Hand Book, and rejected the contentions of the applicants.

(2.) THERE was a revision application against his order, and it was contended before the Additional Collector of Sales Tax who heard the said application that X-ray equipments generated X-rays, that as the process by which such rays were caught on the sensitive plates was radiography and shadowgraphy, it could not be the same as photography, and that the said equipments, therefore, could not be called cameras. The Additional Collector of Sales Tax, however, relied not only on the explanation given in the Hand Book referred to above, but on the popular meaning of the word camera, i.e., an apparatus designed to take photographs, and concluded that an X-ray apparatus which took X-ray photographs could be regarded as an X-ray camera. According to him the fact that an X-ray apparatus generated its own rays for taking photographs could not alter the issue, and he held that the X-ray equipments in question were intended to be covered by the words "other cameras" in entry 4. The opinions of certain experts recorded in their affidavits were not held to be sufficient to displace or disprove the view taken by the Additional Collector. The revision application was accordingly dismissed by him.

(3.) SOME of the distinctions between ordinary photographic cameras and the articles in question are as follows : a photographic camera has a dark chamber or box into which the image of external objects may be projected by means of a lens or other image-forming device, while the machines in question have neither a dark chamber nor a lens or other image-forming device; (2) a photographic camera uses visible light, i.e., sun light or other artificial light visible to the eye, while the rays used in the machines in question are invisible rays of light commonly known as X-rays; (3) in photographic cameras light is reflected from the object to be photographed, while the radiographic image is recorded on a sensitive plate after X-rays have passed through the body in question, such rays having been stopped wholly or partially by certain parts of the body; (4) the X-ray tube essential to these machines and the generators of the special kind of light rays are absent in the case of ordinary photographic cameras and (5) the machines in question, though they are capable of taking radiographs may be and generally are used for other purposes also, for instance, fluoroscopic, i.e., for viewing internal organs or parts of the human bodies, and therapeutic, i.e., for purposes of effecting therapy in cases of certain illnesses of the human body by the exposure of certain parts thereof to X-rays which penetrate deeply into the body or produce salutary results on the surface of the skin. These appear to us to be important distinctions between the class of articles known ordinarily as cameras and the machines under consideration. Shri Kabe for the opponent has, however, contended that we should interpret the expression "cameras" in accordance with the popular usage, and not by taking into consideration either the opinions of the learned experts or meanings to be found in the dictionary. He has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Rukmanibai N. Shah v. The Government of Bombay (1 Bom. S.T.T. S.D. 40), in which in interpreting the term "newspaper" this Tribunal held that the popular meaning of the expression should be taken as the guide, although the meaning given in the dictionaries would be of use in ascertaining such meaning. Shri Kabe has also relied on the Exchequer Court of Canada in His Majesty The King v. Planters Nut and Chocolate Company Limited ([1951] C.T.C. 16), where the question for determination was whether salted peanuts and cashewnuts were vegetables or fruits. Evidence was adduced in that case that both the peanuts and cashewnuts are vegetables in the wider meaning of that word, that each is a "fruit", the former belonging to the same class as peas or beans and the latter to the dry drupe classification like the coconut, and that neither is a nut. The learned Judge, however, did not accept the botanist's conception as to what constituted a "fruit" or "vegetable" and was of opinion that they were ordinary words in every day use and must therefore be construed according to their popular sense. In his opinion those were not used in the sense in which they were understood in any particular science or art, and they were to be construed as they were understood in common language. Shri Kabe has also relied on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh Board of Revenue in the case of Mohanlal Ramkisan Nathani v. The State ([1952] 3 S.T.C. 305), where the learned Board rejected the dictionary meaning of "glass-ware" and held that sales of glass sheets should be taxed not at the rate of one anna in the rupee but at the ordinary rate of six pies in the rupee. They observed, after referring to the definition of "glass-ware" in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as "articles made of glass" : "In this generic sense, it is just possible to hold that plain glass sheets are covered by 'glass-ware', but dictionary meaning cannot be regarded as the last word on the subject. According to Maxwell (page 34 of the Interpretation of Statutes, 9th edition) definitions in dictionaries have been deprecated. He quotes Lord Coleridge ........................... 'Dictionaries are not to be taken as authoritative exponents of the meanings of words used in Acts of Parliament, but it is a well-known rule of courts of law that words shall be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, and we are therefore sent for instruction to those books'."