Radiography equipment is not photographic goods, and the person bearing the tax burden may invoke writ jurisdiction.

X-ray apparatus and films used for radiography were held not to fall within the statutory entry for photographic goods, because they operate through X-rays, not visible light, and are used for medical diagnosis rather than conventional photography; they were therefore treated as other goods for sales tax purposes. The text also notes that a person directly bearing the economic burden of the higher levy may maintain a writ petition as an aggrieved party under Article 226, even if not the dealer primarily liable to pay the tax.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether X-ray apparatus and the films used with it fell within item 6 of the First Schedule to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as photographic goods liable to sales tax at 7% or were taxable only as other goods at 4%; (ii) whether the petitioner, though not the dealer liable to pay the tax, could maintain the writ petition as a person directly aggrieved by the higher rate of tax.

Issue (i): Whether X-ray apparatus and the films used with it fell within item 6 of the First Schedule to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as photographic goods liable to sales tax at 7% or were taxable only as other goods at 4%.

Analysis: Item 6 covered photographic and similar cameras, enlargers, lenses, films, plates, paper, cloth, and accessories required for use therewith. X-ray apparatus was materially different from ordinary photographic equipment: it used X-rays, not visible light, had no dark chamber or lens-based image formation, required a special X-ray tube and generator, and was used primarily for medical diagnosis and treatment. The films used with such apparatus served radiographic purposes and were not accessories required for photographic cameras. On that basis, the apparatus and films could not be brought within item 6.

Conclusion: The X-ray apparatus and related films were not covered by item 6 and were taxable only as other goods at 4%.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner, though not the dealer liable to pay the tax, could maintain the writ petition as a person directly aggrieved by the higher rate of tax.

Analysis: Although the statutory scheme placed the primary liability on the dealer, the correspondence showed that the tax burden was intended to fall ultimately on the petitioner, who was asked to bear the difference if tax was levied at 7%. The taxing authorities themselves recognised that the petitioner would be directly affected by the impugned classification. In these circumstances, the petitioner was treated as an aggrieved person, and the absence of an effective alternative remedy justified invocation of the writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petitioner had locus standi to maintain the petition under Article 226.

Final Conclusion: The levy of sales tax at 7% on the X-ray equipment and films was held to be illegal, and writ relief was granted directing the authorities not to realise tax at that rate in respect of the relevant sales.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods used for medical radiography and diagnosis cannot be classified as photographic goods merely because they produce images, and a person who bears the direct economic burden of an unlawful levy may be treated as an aggrieved party entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction.

---