Radiological diagnostic services are professional services, not sale of goods, and a jurisdictionless tax notice may be quashed.

Radiological diagnostic work was held to be a professional service rather than a sale of goods, because the patient sought technical opinion and diagnosis and any transfer of the X-ray film was merely incidental. On that basis, the activity did not amount to a transfer of property in goods for sales tax purposes and the radiologist was not a dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The Court also held that a writ petition could be entertained against a show cause notice issued without jurisdiction where the proposed tax demand lacked a legal foundation, and the notice was quashed at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the radiologist's activity of giving technical advice and taking X-ray photographs constituted a sale or business in goods so as to attract liability under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable at the stage of a show cause notice on the ground that the notice was without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the radiologist's activity of giving technical advice and taking X-ray photographs constituted a sale or business in goods so as to attract liability under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.

Analysis: The activity was found to be essentially a professional service. The primary object of the transaction was the technical opinion and diagnosis rendered on the basis of X-ray photographs, not the transfer of the X-ray film as a commercial commodity. The patient approached the radiologist for expertise, and any handing over of the film was merely incidental. Applying the statutory definition of sale and dealer, the Court held that the transaction did not involve a transfer of property in goods in the sense required by the Act and could not be treated as a sale.

Conclusion: The radiologist was not liable to sales tax on the X-ray and diagnostic activity, and was not a dealer within the meaning of the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable at the stage of a show cause notice on the ground that the notice was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: Since the notice was founded on an assumption that the petitioner's activity was taxable, but the activity itself was held not to be a sale or taxable business, the notice lacked a proper legal basis. In such a situation, a writ petition could be entertained even at the notice stage because remitting the matter to the authority would serve no useful purpose.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the notice could be quashed at the threshold.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notice was set aside and the petitioner obtained complete relief against the proposed sales tax proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi: Diagnostic and radiological services are professional services, and where the supply of an X-ray film is merely incidental to the rendering of such service, the transaction does not constitute a sale of goods for sales tax purposes; a writ may be entertained against a notice issued without jurisdiction on that basis.

---