COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER SPECIAL CIRCLE II JAIPUR Vs. BHARAT KRISHI YANTRALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE six reference applications filed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Jaipur under section 15 (2) (b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 for requiring the Foard of Revenue to state a case, involve a common question and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE short question for consideration is whether the Board of Revenue was or was not justified in refusing to state a case. THE question involved in all these cases was whether the list of agricultural implements given in clause (b) of item 8 of the Schedule to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was exhaustive and inasmuch as dises barrows and cultivators were not included in the list and hence these articles were liable to tax under general rate. That was the view of the Commercial Taxes Officer but in appeal, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) treated them to be agricultural implements and held that their sale was except from tax, In revision, it was submitted on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Officer that the list was exhaustive but the Board rejected that contention and held that the list given in column 3 of clause (b) of item 8 was illustrative. THE Board of Revenue was further of the view that discs-barrows and cultivators were nothing but agricultural implements as they were in the nature of a plough and therefore entitled to exemption from tax

(3.) IT is further urged on behalf of the assessee that the word 'only' cannot be read in column 3 as suggested by the Revenue. The court must interpret clause (b) of item 8 as it exists. Even assuming that the list is exhaustive, and the word 'only* should be read therein in the context in which it appears, it is suggested that discs-barrows and cultivators are nothing but a modernized version of a 'plough'. Our attention was drawn to the literature on the subject.