JUDGMENT B. C. CHAKRABARTI (Chairman). - This is a reference under section 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter called "the BFST Act") made by the West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal referring the following questions for opinion : "(1) Whether, having regard to the provision enumerated in item 6 of the Schedule II to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, 'process camera' comes within the description of goods referred to in the said item of the Schedule II goods ? (2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in interpreting that 'process camera' does not fall under the description of goods specified in item 6 of Schedule II to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 ?" 2. Reference at the instance of the Revenue, is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 28th September, 1976, in Revision Case No. 830 of 1970-71. The revision was against an appellate order dated 20th April, 1970, modifying the order of assessment of the Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade Charge, under section 11(1) of the BFST Act, 1941, relating to four quarters ending 30th September, 1965. 3. As would be evident from the questions referred, the point of dispute relates to the question whether photo process camera comes within the meaning of item 6 of Schedule II to the BFST Act, 1941. The Tribunal held that photo process cameras do not fall under the category of photographic and other cameras as mentioned in item 6 of Schedule II. 4. In order to effectively answer the questions referred to, it may be useful to reproduce here the particular item of the Schedule which reads as follows : "6. Photographic and other cameras and enlargers and spare parts, accessories and component parts thereof; lenses, films and plates, paper and cloth, and other parts and accessories required for use therewith." 5. According to the Revenue, photo process camera is but a kind of camera and comes within the meaning of "other cameras" as enumerated in item 6. Even though the item does not specifically mention photo process camera, the Revenue by relying on the doctrine of ejusdem generis contended that it comes within the meaning of other cameras. The doctrine means and relates to matters or materials of the same kind, class or nature. Even though the item does not specifically mention photo process camera, the Revenue by relying on the doctrine of ejusdem generis contended that it comes within the meaning of other cameras. The doctrine means and relates to matters or materials of the same kind, class or nature. In the construction of laws, the ejusdem generis rule means that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned. [See Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 464]. Therefore, the reference virtually raises the question whether photo process cameras come within the class of photographic cameras. To be precise, the question is whether they belong to the same general class of commodity. Incidentally, it may be mentioned here that if the contention of the Revenue is to be accepted, then the expression "other cameras" should have included cinematographic equipment including cameras as enumerated in item 5 of the Schedule. It would have been clearly unnecessary to specifically enumerate cinematographic camera, for according to the Revenue it might well have been comprehended within the category of other cameras as enumerated in item 6. Therefore, in our view, the point requires a closer examination. 6. The Tribunal below found that photo process cameras do not fall under the category of photographic and other cameras. In coming to such conclusion the learned Member of the Tribunal has referred to various points of distinction between a photographic camera and a photo process camera the purpose, utilisation and use of which are basically different. 7. The learned State Representative, appearing in support of the reference, argued that photo process camera also is a kind of camera and the mechanism applied for using both are practically identical. Mr. De, the State Representative drew our attention to the case of Diwan Chand Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [1963] 14 STC 51 (Punj). There the question was whether an X-ray appliance would come within the meaning of photographic and other cameras as enumerated in item 6 of the First Schedule to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Delhi. There the question was whether an X-ray appliance would come within the meaning of photographic and other cameras as enumerated in item 6 of the First Schedule to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Delhi. It was observed in the case - that there can be no doubt, and it is a matter of common knowledge that the X-ray photograph, radiograph or skiagram cannot be taken without the use of the particular rays which are called X-rays, and these have to be generated by the apparatus itself. It was held that an apparatus of that kind could not be classed within the category of photographic or other cameras covered by item No. 6. Mr. De contended that the points of distinction referred to in that case are not applicable in the case of a photo process camera where the mechanism for the purpose of processing is the same as in the case of photographic camera. Mr. De also argued that even though a photo process camera is not ordinarily used for the purpose for which a photographic camera is used, yet they cannot be held to be different merely from the point of view of the test of user. It may be mentioned here that photo process camera is used for the purpose of copying flat objects but it cannot be used to taking photographs of three dimensional objects. In support of the contention that the user test is not of much moment, reliance was placed in the case of Dongare v. State of Karnataka reported in [1990] 77 STC 462 (Kar). It was held in that case that the user test cannot be the sole test. It was further held that in the interpretation of entries in a taxing statute, full effect should be given to all the words used therein. If a particular article would fall within a description, by the force of words used, it is impermissible to ignore that description and denote the article under another entry, by a process of reasoning. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the user cannot be the sole test in determining whether a particular item should be grouped in one or the other category. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the user cannot be the sole test in determining whether a particular item should be grouped in one or the other category. There can also be no dispute with the proposition that if an article squarely falls within a description by the words used, such description cannot be ignored so as to bring the article within the meaning of another entry. Therefore, we have to see whether photo process camera comes within the description of other cameras as used in item 6 and in order to find the answer to the question we have also to see whether a photo process camera comes within the meaning of photographic camera as a class. 8. Mr. Mukherjee, appearing in support of the dealer in whose favour the Tribunal below found, argued that a photographic camera and photo process camera are basically different items not merely from the point of view of user but also from other points of view. In support of the contention he referred to the chapter entitled "process camera" in the book titled with the Focal Encyclopaedia of Photography, Volume II, published by the Focal Press, London and New York, 1974 Edition. It is said at page 1181 of the book that the printing blocks used in the photo mechanical reproduction process are made from negatives which are exposed in a process camera - sometimes called a copying camera. The process camera is a permanent piece of equipment which is bolted down to the floor of the room or carried on runners which are bolted to the floor. The camera consists essentially of two vertical frames mounted on a set of horizontal rails. One frame carries the lens panel and the other the plate holder and the process screen. The photo process camera can be used for taking flat objects but cannot be used for taking photographs of three dimensional objects. It is not portable in the sense a photographic camera is. It is for all purposes a sort of copier used mainly for the purpose of printing. In the Encyclopaedia Britannica the process camera is discussed in the chapter relating to printing, typography and engraving [Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, Volume 26, page 105]. Photographic cameras have been discussed in a different chapter obviously because they do not belong to the same category. 9. In the Encyclopaedia Britannica the process camera is discussed in the chapter relating to printing, typography and engraving [Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, Volume 26, page 105]. Photographic cameras have been discussed in a different chapter obviously because they do not belong to the same category. 9. It is true that a process camera also has a lens, a dark chamber and a plate, film or glass attached on which the reproduction is made, yet it differs from a photographic camera in many respects. In the latter, three dimensional objects can be reproduced while in the former it cannot be done. The latter is used in a vertical position for making copies of plane objects while the former is used generally horizontally though occasionally it may be used vertically too for artistic purposes. The process camera is a heavy duty machine attached to the floor and weighing about 1 tonne or more while a photographic camera is a portable thing. The process camera takes objects up to 16" x 20" or more in size whole the photographic camera cannot take pictures in that size. Such sizes can be had from the negatives obtained from photographic cameras by the use of enlarger or projector, but not otherwise. The process camera is a commodity different from a photographic camera. Process camera is a technological device for purpose of printing. Strictly it is a sort of a copier. 10. The use of the word camera alone cannot be a determining factor. The word has various meanings including a dark chamber as well [See Shorter Oxford Dictionary]. Therefore, by reason of use of the word "camera" while describing a mechanism meant for printing technology, it cannot be said that it falls within the category of photographic camera. 11. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal below. Question No. 1 is accordingly answered in the negative. The answer to question No. 2 must, as a necessary corollary, be in the affirmative. We answer the points accordingly. 12. The reference is thus disposed of. P. C. BANERJI (Technical Member). - I agree. L. N. RAY (Judicial Member). I agree. Reference answered accordingly.