http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: D.H. BROTHERS PVT. LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/08/1991

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1991 AIR 1992            1991 SCR  (3) 423  1991 SCC  Supl.  (2)  71 JT 1991 (3)   378  1991 SCALE  (2)270

ACT:     U.P.  Sales  Tax Act, 1948:  Section  4--Exemption  from tax--Notification  dated  14.11.1980--Amending the  list  of agricultural implements--Sugarcane  crusher (Kohlu)--Whether "agricultural implement" and hence exempt from levy of sales tax.     Administrative    Law:  Legislative    intention--Taxing statute--Various items mentioned in one group to be  consid- ered  in  a  generic sense--Courts to give  the  meaning  as intended by the framers in the statute.

HEADNOTE:     The appellant, a registered dealer under U.P. Sales  Tax Act,  1948  has been selling machinery  including  sugarcane crusher. The State Government was issuing Notifications from time to time exempting agricultural implements from the levy of sales tax. The State Government by its Notification dated 14.11.1980  amended  the list  and  enumerated  agricultural implements. Since sugarcane crusher (Kohlu) was not included therein, the appellant claimed before the Sales tax  Commis- sioner that the Kohlu meant for extracting juice from sugar- cane  was an agricultural implement and as such  was  exempt from levy of sales tax. Since the Commissioner negatived his claim,  the appellant preferred an appeal before  the  Sales Tax Tribunal.     The  Tribunal having upheld the findings of the  Commis- sioner,  the appellant filed a revision petition before  the High Court. Relying on its earlier decision, the High  Court dismissed  the  revision  petition. Aggrieved  by  the  High Court’s  decision, the appellant has preferred  the  present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court,     HELD:  1. The agricultural process comes to an end  when the  crop is harvested and is brought home for marketing  or for further processing. Preparation of gur from Sugarcane is not the continuation of the agricultural process. [427D-E] 424     Bharat Engineering and Foundry Works v. The U.P. Govern- ment,  [1963] 14 S.T.C. 262 and Commissioner of  Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy,  [1957] 32 I.T.R. 466, relied on.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

   2.  While giving meaning to an item in a  taxing  statue the  Courts  should  give it a meaning as  intended  by  the framers  of  the  statute by looking at  the  various  items mentioned  in  a particular group. The items  in  one  group should be considered in a generic sense. [427F]      3. In the instant case the notification dated  November 14, 1980 includes various items under the head "agricultural implements".  The said definition cannot be confined to  the various  implements  specifically  mentioned  therein.   The definition  being  inclusive it has a wider import  and  any other implement which answers the description of an agricul- tural  implement can be included in the definition.  A  bare reading  of the notification shows that all  the  implements mentioned by the name after the word "including.......  "are by  and large those which are used for cultivation  of  land and  other operations which foster the growth  and  preserve the  agricultural produce. None of these implements  can  be worked  after the agricultural process in respect of a  crop comes  to an end. Therefore the intention of the framers  of the notification could only be to limit the general words in the  notification to the implements of the same kind as  are specified  therein. As such sugarcane crushers do  not  come within  the definition of agricultural implements.  [427F-H; 428A-B]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal  No.  5047 (NT) of 1985.      From  the  Judgment and Order dated 17.7. 1985  of  the Allahabad High Court in Sales Tax Revision No. of 1985. Madan Lokur for the Appellant. Ashok K. Srivastava for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by       KULDIP SINGH, J- The short question for our considera- tion in   this appeal is whether a sugarcane crusher (kohlu) is an "agricultural 425 implement"  Within the meaning Of U.P. Government  notifica- tion dated November 14, 1980 and as such is exempt from levy of Sales Tax.    M/s.  D.H. Brothers Pvt. Ltd., a registered dealer  under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, is engaged in the sale of  machinery including sugarcane crushers. After coming into force of the Uttar  Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called  ’the Act’) the State Government issued a notification dated  June 7,  1948 exempting agricultural implements from the levy  of sales  tax. Thereafter fresh notifications were issued  from the  time to time. The relevant notification dated  November 14,1980 enumerated the "Agricultural implements" as under:                      "Agricultural  implements"  worked   by               human  or  animal  power,  including   Khurpi,               Dibbler, Spade, Hansla (Sickle) Garden  Knife,               Axe,  Gandasa,  Chaff Cutters,  Shears,  Seca-               teurs,  Rake, Shovel, Ploughs,  Water  lifting               leather      buckets (Pur and Mhot), Rahat and               persian  whell,  Chain  Pump,  Harrows,  Hoes,               Cultivators, Seed Drills, Threshers, Shellers,               Winnowing  fans,  Paddy  weeders,  Gardenfork,               Lopper),  Belcha,  Bill  Hook  (Double  edge),               Kudali,Fork, garden Hatchet, Bill Hook (Single               edge),  Hay Bailer, Bund  formers,  Scrappers,               Levellers  or Levelling Karahas,  Yokes,  crop               yield  Judginghoops, Hand sprayers Hand  dust-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

             ers,  Animal driven vehicles  including  carts               having  pneumatic  tyre  wheels,  crow   bars,               sugarcane  Planters and  accessories,  attach-               ments  and spare parts of  these  agricultural               implements".     The  assessee invoked the jurisdiction of  Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh under Section 35 of the Act  claim- ing that the Kohlu meant for extracting juice from sugarcane was an agricultural implement within the above quoted  noti- fication and as such was exempt from levy of Sales Tax.  The Commissioner  by his order dated December 31,  1983  decided the question against the assessee. The assessee filed appeal against  the said order before the Sales Tax Tribunal.  Luc- know Bench, under Section 10 of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the  findings of the Commissioner and dismissed the  appeal. Thereafter the assessee preferred a revision petition  under Section 11 of the Act before the Allahabad. High Court.  The High  Court relying on its earlier decision in Bharat  Engi- neering and Foundry Works v. 426 The  U.P.  Government, [1963] 14 S.T.C.  262  dismissed  the revision petition. In that case the question for  considera- tion  before the High Court was "whether cane  crushers  are agricultural  implements  within the meaning  of  the  words ’agricultural  implements’  as mentioned in  the  Government Notification.......  and hence exempt from U.P. sales  tax." The  question was answered in the negative on the  following reasoning:               "Cane crushers and boiling pans are used  only               in  the  manufacture of  gur  from  sugarcane.               Sugarcane  is an agricultural produce and  the               process  which  results in the  production  of               sugarcane is undoubtedly agriculture, but  the               production of gur from sugarcane is a manufac-               turing  process and not an agricultural  proc-               ess. The agricultural process comes to an  end               with the production of sugarcane and when  gur               is subsequently being prepared it is  manufac-               turing process that commences. Merely  because               sugarcane is an agricultural produce  anything               that is done to it after it is product is  not               necessarily a continuation of the agricultural               process. It cannot be doubted that agricultur-               al produce can the subjected to a  manufactur-               ing  process; merely because gut  is  produced               out  of  sugarcane which  is  an  agricultural               produce, the process of preparing gut does not               become  an agricultural process..........   An               agricultural implement is an implement that is               used  in  agriculture; any implement  that  is               used  after the agricultural process comes  to               an end and a manufacturing process  commences,               is not an agricultural implement."                   The High Court in Bharat Engineering  case               relied upon the following observations of this               Court  in  Commissioner  of  Income-tax,  West               Bengal,  Calcutta  v. Raja Benoy  Kumar  Sahas               Roy, [1957] 32 I.T.R. 466:               "Agriculture is the basic idea underlying  the               expressions   ’agricultural   purposes’    and               ’agricultural operations’ and it is  pertinent               therefore  to enquire what is the  connotation               of  the term ’agriculture’. As we  have  noted               above,  the  primary sense in which  the  term               agriculture  is understood is  agar-field  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

             cultracultivation,  i.e., the  cultivation  of               the field, and if the term is understood  only               in that sense agriculture would be  restricted               only to cultivation of the               427               land  in the strict sense of the term  meaning               thereby,  tilling of the land, sowing  of  the               seeds, planting and similar operations on  the               land.  They would be the basic operations  and               would  require the expenditure of human  skill               and  labour  upon the land itself.  There  are               however other operations which have got to  be               resorted to by the agriculturist and which are               absolutely necessary for the purpose of effec-               tively raising the produce from the land. They               are  operations  to  be  performed  after  the               produce sprouts from the land, e.g.,  weeding,               digging the soil around the growth, removal of               undesirable  undergrowths and  all  operations               which foster the growth and preserve the  same               not only from insects and pests but also  from               depradation  from outside,  tending,  pruning,               cutting, harvesting, and rendering the produce               fit  for the market. The latter would  all  be               agricultural operations when taken in conjunc-               tion  with  the  basic  operations  above  de-               scribed,  and it would be futile to urge  that               they   are  not  agricultural  operations   at               all........."     It  is clear from the above quoted observations of  this Court that the agricultural process comes to an end when the crop  is harvested and is brought home for marketing or  for further  processing.  In the present case  the  agricultural process finishes when sugarcane is harvested. Preparation of gur  from sugarcane is not the continuation of the  agricul- tural process.     While giving meaning to an item in a taxing statute  the Courts  should give it a meaning as intended by the  framers of the statute by looking at the various items mentioned  in a particular group. The items in one group should be consid- ered  in a genderic sense. The notification  dated  November 14, 1980 includes various items under the head "agricultural implements". It is no doubt correct that the said definition cannot  be confined to the various  implements  specifically mentioned  therein. The definition being inclusive it has  a wider  import  and  any other implement  which  answers  the description of an agricultural implement can be included  in the definition. A bare reading of the notification, however, shows  that all the implements mentioned by name  after  the word  "including........  "are by and large those which  are used  for  cultivation of land and  other  operations  which foster  the  growth and preserve the  agricultural  produce. None of these implements can be worked after the agricultur- al  process in respect of a crop comes to an end.  Therefore the intention of the framers of the 428 notification could only be to limit the general words in the notification  to  the  implements of the same  kind  as  are specified  therein. We are, therefore, of the view  that  on the plain reading of the notification the sugarcane crushers do  not  come within the definition of  agricultural  imple- ments.     It has been brought to our notice that from 1985 onwards the  State  Government has specifically  exempted  sugarcane crushers from the levy of sales tax.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

We dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. G.N.                                            Appeal  dis- missed. 429