Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Bishram Tiwari - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.R. No. 288 of 1970
Judge
Reported in[1971]28STC485(All)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentBishram Tiwari
Appellant AdvocateStanding Counsel
Respondent AdvocateS.B.L. Srivastava, Adv.
Excerpt:
- - (i) particularly, especially, above all, (ii) carefully, precisely, (iii) by name, individually, (iv) at least, at any rate, (v) to wit, that is to say, videlicet. in any case 'machinery' is a generic name and some of the agricultural implements might well be termed as machinery......to that notification. item no. 1 of list ii reads:agricultural implements worked by human or animal power, namely, khurpi (hoe), dibber, spade, hansia (sickle), garden knife, axe, gandasa, chaff-cutter, shears, secateurs, rake, shovel, ploughs and accessories thereof, water lifting leather buckets (pur and mhot) and accessories thereof and rahat and persian wheel and accessories thereof. 4. it does not appear to have been disputed on behalf of the sales tax department that a sprayer is an agricultural implement. however, the case of the department appears to be that 'sprayers' are not covered by the notification of 31st march, 1956, because they do not find a place in the list of the articles mentioned therein. according to the department, the turnover of sprayers would be taxable.....
Judgment:

R.L. Gulati, J.

1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow, the Additional Revising Authority, Sales Tax, Varanasi, has submitted the statement of the case under Section 11(3) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act for the opinion of this Court on the following question of law:

Whether in view of the above facts and in the circumstances 'sprayers' will be treated as agricultural implements in view of the Notification No. ST-911/X dated 31st March, 1956, or they are machinery as provided under Notification No. ST-1367/X-1045(19) 60 dated 5th April, 1961

2. The assessee carries on business in brass syringes and agricultural sprayers. In respect of the assessment year 1963-64 the assessee claimed exemption from tax on his turnover of sprayers on the basis of Notification No. ST-911/X dated 31st March, 1956. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept the assessee's claim. On appeal the appellate authority held that sprayers were agricultural implements but since they were not included in the articles enumerated in the notification their turnover was not entitled to exemption. The Judge (Revisions) before whom the assessee went up in revision allowed the assessee's claim holding that the sprayers being agricultural implements were covered by the notification even though they were not included in the articles enumerated in the notification. In his opinion the notification was not exhaustive.

3. Notification No. ST-911/X dated 31st March, 1956, is a notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and exempts from tax certain articles mentioned in the two lists attached to that notification. Item No. 1 of List II reads:

Agricultural implements worked by human or animal power, namely, Khurpi (Hoe), Dibber, Spade, Hansia (Sickle), Garden knife, Axe, Gandasa, Chaff-cutter, Shears, Secateurs, rake, shovel, ploughs and accessories thereof, water lifting leather buckets (pur and mhot) and accessories thereof and Rahat and Persian wheel and accessories thereof.

4. It does not appear to have been disputed on behalf of the sales tax department that a sprayer is an agricultural implement. However, the case of the department appears to be that 'sprayers' are not covered by the notification of 31st March, 1956, because they do not find a place in the list of the articles mentioned therein. According to the department, the turnover of sprayers would be taxable under Notification No. ST-1367/X-1045 (19)-1960 dated 5th April, 1961, as falling in the category of 'machinery and spare parts of machinery'. Thus the real dispute appears to be as to whether the list of agricultural implements mentioned in the notification of 31st March, 1956, is exhaustive.

5. The notification seeks to exempt agricultural implements worked by human and animal power and contains a list of certain agricultural implements which are so worked by human and animal power. The list is preceded by the word 'namely'. According to the New English Dictionary, the word 'namely' has the following meanings:

(i) particularly, especially, above all, (ii) carefully, precisely, (iii) by name, individually, (iv) at least, at any rate, (v) to wit, that is to say, videlicet.

6. It is thus clear that the word 'namely' has got no fixed meaning. Depending upon the context, it may mean the things which have been named or it may mean 'for example' or ''such as' or 'at least'.

7. A perusal of the notification shows that the intention was to divide all the agricultural implements into two divisions, viz., (i) the implements driven by human or animal power and (ii) mechanised implements or those driven otherwise than by human and animal power. It does not appear to have been the intention to exempt only some of the agricultural implements driven by human and animal power and to leave out others. The idea seems to have been to exempt all agricultural implements driven by human or animal power and to tax only those agricultural implements which are worked otherwise than by human or animal power.

8. As regards the question as to whether 'sprayers' would fall in the category of machinery, the same in our opinion does not arise out of the order of the Judge (Revisions), because we find no mention of that point in the revisional order. In any case 'machinery' is a generic name and some of the agricultural implements might well be termed as machinery. But when 'agricultural implements' have been specifically dealt with in the notification of 31st March, 1956, their taxability would be determined with reference to that notification on the principle that specific overrides the general.

9. We accordingly answer the question by saying that 'sprayers' have rightly been treated as agricultural implements falling under the notification of 31st March, 1956. Tie assessee is entitled to the costs which we assess at Rs. 100. Counsel's fee is also assessed at the same figure.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //