DIWAN CHAND AGGARWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in which the facts may be stated.

(2.) THE petitioner is a doctor and carries on practice as a specialist in radiology, i. e. , diagnosis and treatment of diseases with the help of X-ray appliances etc. Respondent No. 3, the East Asiatic Company (India) Private Ltd. , supplied to the petitioner X-ray equipment consisting of (a) high tension generator (which raises the voltage from 200 volts to 1,25,000 volts); (b) a control which regulates the voltage and amperage to the X-ray tube. (c) X-ray tube itself which generates X-ray; (d) stand to hold the tube; and (e) one X-ray couch with which a 2nd X-ray tube is fitted and with which examination of different parts of inside of human body is made.

(3.) THE total cost of this equipment is stated to be Rs. 1,60,000. The petitioner claims that the said appliances could be used only for the purpose of diagnosis as well as treatment of the patients and has been imported for that purpose alone. X-ray films on which an image of the inside body is received are used only for the aforesaid purpose and are not used for taking ordinary photographs.