1992 (7) TMI 304 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the rejection of application for declaration forms under rule 27AA(2)(a) or 27AA(2)(cc) of Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941.
2. Classification of diesel engine pump sets as agricultural implements under item 13 of Schedule I to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
3. Interpretation of the exception in column 2 of item 13 regarding "other implements" under the Act.

Analysis:
1. The rejection of the application for declaration forms was challenged based on whether it was validly done under rule 27AA(2)(a) or 27AA(2)(cc) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. The applicant argued that the rejection was invalid and should have been withheld instead. The Tribunal held that the rejection was under rule 27AA(2)(cc) as it required payment of due taxes for 1991-92. The Tribunal agreed that the rejection was validly done under rule 27AA(2)(cc), dismissing the contention that it should have been under rule 27AA(2)(a).

2. The main issue revolved around whether diesel engine pump sets qualified as agricultural implements under item 13 of Schedule I to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The Tribunal considered arguments from both sides. The applicant contended that these pump sets were intimately connected with agriculture, predominantly used in agriculture, and sold to agriculturists, thus falling under the definition of agricultural implements. The Tribunal agreed with the applicant, citing cases and common parlance understanding to support the classification of diesel engine pump sets as agricultural implements under the Act.

3. Further, the Tribunal analyzed the exception in column 2 of item 13 regarding "other implements." The interpretation of whether diesel engine pump sets were covered by this exception was crucial. The State Representative argued for a broad interpretation, while the applicant advocated for a restrictive interpretation using the rule of ejusdem generis. The Tribunal sided with the applicant, holding that diesel engine pump sets did not fall under the exception as they were not of the nature of tractors and power tillers, thus concluding that they were agricultural implements not excluded by the exception.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the application, quashed the impugned order rejecting the declaration forms, and directed a fresh disposal of the application. Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the refund of the security deposit and granted a stay for ten weeks. Both members of the Tribunal concurred, and the application was allowed.