Nagendra Rai and Ashok Kumar Verma, JJ.
1. The petitioner, a public limited company, has filed the present writ application for quashing the circular dated 15-1-2002, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (respondent No. 2) holding that the Tractor comes under the definition of the motor vehicle as defined under Section 2(g) of the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale therein Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and, is, thus, liable to pay entry tax. It has also challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Patliputra Circle, Patna (respondent No. 3) asking the petitioner to pay entry tax on the Tractor under the provisions of the said Act. Copies of the said circular and order have been appended as Annexures 2 and 3, respectively, to the writ application.
2. The petitioner's case is that its Head Office is at Faridabad in the State of Haryana and has Branches in various States including the State of Bihar and in Patna it is engaged in business of sale of Tractor, Motor Cycle etc. It is registered under the Bihar Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act and has been paying taxes under the aforesaid Acts. It is importing Tractor from the Head Officer in the State of Bihar and selling the same through its distributors mainly to the Agriculturists within the State of Bihar and outside the State of Bihar. The Tractor is not a motor vehicle which is one of the scheduled goods and as such it is not liable to pay entry tax under the Act.
3. The stand of the respondent-State is that the Tractor is a Motor Vehicle as defined under the Act and the Motor Vehicle is one of the scheduled goods chargeable to tax under the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner is liable to pay tax on the Tractor in accordance with the charging Section 3 of the Act. The Motor Vehicle has been defined under Section 2 (g) of the Act, which means Motor Vehicles as defined in Clause (28) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Tractor is included within the aforesaid definition. This apart, the Tractor has also been defined under Section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which says that the Tractor is a Motor Vehicle. Thus, the petitioner cannot escape liability from the payment of tax under the Act on the ground that the Tractor is not a Motor Vehicle.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tractor is not a Motor Vehicle as it is not adapted for use on the road and as such it is not a Motor Vehicle, which is one of the scheduled goods subjected to charge under the Act. Elaborating his submission, he submitted that the Tractor is used as an agricultural machinery and as such it is not a Motor Vehicle. It is not included within the definition of the Motor Vehicle as defined under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the respondent-State cannot take the help of the definition of the Tractor mentioned in Section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act as the same is not mentioned in the definition of the Motor Vehicle as defined under the Act. He further submitted that the taxing statute has to be strictly construed and nothing can be read into it. He further submitted that in a fiscal or taxing statute if a particular word is used then said word is to be understood in its popular meaning and not technical meaning. In popular sense, the Tractor is used as an agricultural machinery and as such it should not be treated as a Motor Vehicle as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act, read with Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines the Motor Vehicle as genus and the Tractor is one of the species of the Motor Vehicle as defined under Section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Even if the aforesaid definition of the Tractor is not taken into consideration, it is a Motor Vehicle as defined under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act and by virtue of the definition contained in Section 2(g) of the Act, the entry of the Tractor in the local area is liable to tax under the provisions of the Act. He did not dispute the proposition of law that the taxing statute is to be construed strictly and nothing is to be read more therein and the entry in the fiscal statute should be construed in its popular meaning and not in its strict or technical meaning, but submitted that the said question does not arise in this case. The plain reading of the said provision shows that the Tractor is a Motor Vehicle. It is not only used as an agricultural machinery, on the other hand, it is used for many other purposes.
6. They only question, which falls for consideration in this writ application is as to whether the Tractor is a Motor Vehicle as defined under the Act or not. Once it is found that the Tractor is a Motor Vehicle as defined under the Act then there is no dispute that it is liable to entry tax under charging Section 3 of the Act as Motor Vehicle is admittedly one of the scheduled goods liable to entry tax. Before adverting to the submissions advanced at the Bar, it would be apt to refer to the relevant provisions having a bearing on the said question, The Act has been enacted to provide for levy and collection of tax on entry of goods into local areas for consumption, use or sale therein at the rate prescribed therein. The Schedule to the Act contains the details of goods liable to charge of entry tax under the Act. Motor Vehicle is one of the scheduled goods. Against the schedule was scrutinised in 2001 and 18 items including Motor Vehicle were included in the schedule. Thus, entry of Motor Vehicle into the local area for the purpose mentioned in Section 3 is liable to tax at the rate specified in the schedule.
7. The Motor Vehicles has been defined under Section 2(g) of the Act, according to which the Motor Vehicle has the same meaning as defined under Clause (28) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Clause (28) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act defines the Motor Vehicle, which runs as follows :
'2(28). 'Motor Vehicle' or Vehicle' means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twentyfive cubic centimeters.'
8. From the reading of the aforesaid three provisions, it is clear that the Motor Vehicle under the Act has the same meaning as given under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Vehicle means a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer. However, the Motor Vehicle does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twentyfive cubic centimeters. The definition of the Motor Vehicle includes Tractor etc. The tractor has been defined under Section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicle Act, which runs as follows :
'2(44). 'Tractor' means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller.'
9. The law is well-settled that the taxing statute has to be construed strictly and the Court has to look at the language used and there is no room for any intendment. Nothing is to be read into it or nothing is to be implied. The Court cannot supply new logos or invent unnatural sense to words to fulfil the unexpressed and unsatiated wishes of the legislature. If there is doubt regarding interpretation of any provision, the benefit of the interpretation will go in favourof the tax payer.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited a number of cases in support of the aforesaid proposition. In my view, it is not necessary to multiply cases on this point. It is sufficient to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Federation of A. P. Chambers of Commerce & Industry v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 550, wherein at paragraph 7 it has been held as follows :
'7. It is trite law that a taxing statute has to be strictly construed and nothing can be read into it. In the classic passage from Cape Brandy Syndicate which was noticed in the judgment under appeal, it was said :
'In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can look fairly at the language used'.
This view has been reiterated by this Court time and again. Thus, in State of Bombay v. Automobile and Agricultural Industries Corporation this Court said :
'But the Courts in interpreting a taxing statute will not be justified in adding words thereto so as to make out some presumed object of the legislature..... If the legislature has failed to clarify its meaning by the use of appropriate language, the benefit thereof must go to the taxpayer. It is settled law that in case of doubt, that interpretation of a taxing statute which is beneficial to the taxpayer must be adopted.'
11. The words and expressions used in sales tax enactments are to be understood in common parlance particularly by those, who are dealing in them and it should not be given a technical or strict meaning. The Apex Court in the case of Royal Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 666, at paragraphs, held as follows :
'It is well-settled proposition that such expression occurring in sales-tax enactments must be understood in their popular sense, that is in the sense in which 'people conversant with the subject matter with which the Statute is dealing would attribute to it.'
12. The Tractor is a machine run by diesel or petrol. It is a self-propelled vehicle for haulting other vehicles. It is used for different purposes. It is also used for agricultural purposes, along with other implements; such as harrows, ploughs, tillers, blade-terracers, seed-drills etc. It cannot be said that as the Tractor is also used on agricultural land for driving certain agricultural implements, it is used only for agricultural purposes. It is a self-propelled vehicle capable of pulling alone as defined under the definition of Motor Vehicles. It does not fall within any of the exclusions as defined under the Motor Vehicle Act. Thus, it is a Motor Vehicle in terms of the definition under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which definition has been adopted by the Act. So, even without referring to the definition of the Tractor, if the definition of the Motor Vehicle as given under the Act is strictly construed, even then the Tractor is a Motor Vehicle as defined under the Act. The Tractor is not only used for agricultural purposes but is also used for other purposes as stated above. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tractor in its popular meaning is only used for agricultural purposes and, thus, is not a Motor Vehicle as defined under the Act The Tractor is a Motor Vehicle is also proved by this definition under Section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Different types of Motor Vehicles have been defined under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Tractor is one of them.
13. Thus, considering the question from any angle, the Tractor is a Motor Vehicle as defined under the Act and once it is a Motor Vehicle, it is liable to entry tax on fulfilment of the conditions as mentioned in the charging Section by virtue of it being one of the scheduled goods liable to charge under the said Section.
14. In the result, we find not merit in this writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed.