9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Standing Counsel, Revenue, for the respondents. Whereas, petitioner No. 1 has introduced itself to be a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Chandmari, Guwahati and a registered dealer under the Act engaged in the business of sale and supply of various agricultural implements including power tillers, petitioner No. 2 has described himself to be its director. The petitioner-company had submitted its return on turnover under the Act before the assessing authority for the assessment year 200506 (May 1, 2005 to March 28, 2006(1)) and paid the tax on the sale of "power tillers" at four paise in a rupee, i.e., four per cent. This was based on the comprehension that "power tiller" was included within the "agricultural implements" not operated manually or not driven by animal as enumerated in entry No. 1 of the Second Schedule to the Act. The assessing officer, however, in course of the assessment proceeding held the view that the item "power tiller" in terms of Notification No. FTX.55/2005/Pt-II/20 dated July 29, 2005 issued by the Government of Assam in the Finance (Taxation) Department was taxable at 12.5 per cent for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... illers, harvesters and threshers were not considered to be instruments adaptable only for the use in the agricultural activities. They pleaded that the item "power tiller" having been included in entry 65 of the Second Schedule only with effect from July 29, 2005, the legislative intention was obvious that the same was taxable at 12.5 per cent prior thereto. While admitting that tractors, power tillers, harvesters, threshers which are engineered products with a high degree of sophistication adaptable for use in agricultural activity and also for distinct and separate activity of transportation and haulage in case of tractors and power tillers, they have maintained that "power tiller" is not only an agricultural implement. The respondents though admitted that the pursuit of agriculture may encompass ventures like tilling of land, sowing of seeds, planting, weeding, removal of undesirable undergrowths and the like, it does not include the activity of transportation and hauling which is the added function of a power tiller as is manifest from the brochure of the device annexed to the writ petition. According to them, the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, has validly held that the power ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Electricity Regulatory Commission [2007] 7 SCC 636. Mr. Saikia per contra, has been emphatic to urge that the amendment of entry 65 of the Second Schedule to the Act is an unmistakable indicator of the fact that a power tiller prior thereto was not construable as an agricultural implement. He has therefore, insisted that the clarifications provided by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam is valid in all respects and that the power tiller is chargeable at 12.5 per cent for the period May 1, 2005 to July 28, 2005. Referring to the brochure of the power tiller of the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel has maintained that it is demonstrative of the multifarious use thereof and by no means could be deemed to be an agricultural implement. According to him, though one or more accessories of the power tiller by the nature and extent of their use in the agricultural operations could be regarded as agricultural implement, the device as a whole cannot be conceded that status. Referring to entry 65, Mr. Saikia argued that the appliances mentioned therein have been referred to in their generic sense and therefore cannot be equated with agricultural implement contemplated in entry No. 1 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ements manually operated or animal driven, entry 1 of the Second Schedule referred to the agricultural implements not operated manually or not driven by animal to be taxable at four per cent. Entry No. 65 of that Schedule at that point of time did not mention "power tillers". With the notification dated July 29, 2005 occasioning an amendment amongst others to the Second Schedule the words "power tillers" were included in entry No. 65 to be charged at four per cent. Does the legislative initiative ipso facto establish that, the "power tillers" were hitherto contemplated in entry 1 of the Fifth Schedule of the residuary item to be taxed at 12.5 per cent? It is not the case of either of the parties that a "power tiller" has no association at all with the agricultural enterprises. The Revenue seeks to exclude it from the purview of an agricultural implement in view of the multitude of use to which it can be applied apart from agricultural purposes. The brochure of the "power tiller" of which the petitioner-company is the dealer, certifies its range of use for tilling, ploughing, weeding, pumping, levelling, hulling, transporting, etc. It comments for its use to make the entire agricul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey are not agricultural operations at all. . ." The essence of the exposition is that an agricultural operation cannot be restricted only to tilling, sowing, planting and the other activities being resorted to by the agriculturists which are absolutely necessary for the purpose of effectively raising the produce from the land and that weeding, digging the soil around the growth, removal of undesirable undergrowths and all operations which would foster growth and preservation thereof, tending, pruning, cutting, harvesting and rendering it fit for the market would all be enfolded therein. In the face of the amplitude and expanse of an agricultural operation as conceived of and countenanced by the apex court, the notion of an agricultural implement cannot logically be restricted to a device exclusively used for the purpose of tilling the land alone. Correspondingly an enlarged connotation of an agricultural implement if not provided, there would be contradiction in terms leading to conceptual ambivalence and incongruence entailing absurd consequences. Thus, in the estimate of this court, in the perspective of the discernment of agricultural operations, propounded in the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enoy Kumar Sahas Roy [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC). The belt pulley used in a truck and also sold as a spare part otherwise was held by the apex court in State of Punjab v. Hindsons (P.) Ltd. [1985] 58 STC 20; [1984] (Supp) SCC 415 not to be an agricultural implement. It was observed that such a belt pulley if used in a truck may increase its utility in agricultural operations, but that by itself would not make it an agricultural implement. This decision as well in the opinion of this court, does not advance the case of the Revenue as the machine involved herein is a "power tiller" and not any part of or accessory thereof common to any other device. This is more so, as the utilization of "power tillers" in some agricultural activities is admitted by the Revenue. The apex court while dilating on the elementary norms of interpreting statutory enactments, expounded in M/s. Polestar Electronic (Pvt.) Ltd. [1978] 41 STC 409; [1978] 1 SCC 636 that the intention of the Legislature should be gathered from the language used by it and it is not permissible for the court to speculate the same. It would be impermissible for it to hypothesize as to what the Legislature must have intended to and then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
