PREMIER FILMS Vs. C T O SHYAMBAZAR CHARGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the material point of time, the petitioner No. 2, Smt. Archana Kejriwal as proprietress of the petitioner No. 1 firm, M/s. Premier Films, was carrying on business of reselling x -ray films. Commercial Tax Officer, Shyambazar Charge, (in short, "the CTO") assessed the petitioners' sales tax dues for the year 1992 -93 under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as, "the 1941 Act") and passed an assessment order on May 8, 1995 estimating gross turnover at Rs. 3,50,000 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, "the Board") in revision. By judgment and order dated January 13, 2005, the Judicial Member of the Board confirmed the appellate order and dismissed the revision. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Tribunal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, x -ray films did not fall within the description "photographic films and plates" as contemplated in Section 5(1)(d) of the 1941 Act and there being no other clause covering x -ray films those were covered by the residuary clause in Section 5(1)(e) of the Act. The CTO disallowed such claim. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the said contention of the petitioners merely stating that such claim had no logic. While confirming the appellate order, the Board also did not assign any reason of its own but merely recorded that no cogent and sufficient grounds could be placed by the dealer to support that x -ray films and photographic films were different commodities.

(3.) LEARNED advocate appearing for the petitioners has placed before us several decisions on the said question and a circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in support of the contention that x -ray films were/are different from photographic films and plates.