D.H. BROTHERS PVT. LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 423 · Decided: 08-08-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

D.H. BROTHERS PVT. LTD. 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW 
AUGUST 8, 1991 
[KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
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 considered in a generic 
sense-Courts to give the meaning as intended by the framers in the 
statute. 
A 
B 
c 
The appellant, a registered dealer under U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 D 
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 Govern-
ment by its Notification dated 14.11.1980 amended tbe list and 
enumerated agricultural implements. Since sugarcane crusher (Kohlu) 
was not included therein, the appellant claimed before the Sales tax 
E 
Commissioner that the Kohlu meant for extracting juice from 
sugarcane was an agricultural implement and as such was exempt from 
levy of sales tax. Since the Commissioner negatived his claim, the appel-
lant preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. · 
The Tribunal having upheld the findings of the Commissioner, 
F 
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: I. The agricultural process comes to an end when the crop 
is harvested and is brought home for marketing or for further proces-
si11g. Preparation of gur from Sugarcane is not the continuation of the 
agricultural process. [427D-E] 
423 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
424 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 3 S.C.R. 
Bharat Engineering and Foundry Works v. The U.P. Govern-
ment, [1963] 14 S. T.C. 262 a!ld Commissioner of Income-tax, West 
Bengal, Calcutta v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, [1957] 32 I.T.R. 
466, relied on. 
2. While giving meaning to an item in a taxing statue the Courts 
shuuld give it a meani~ as intended by the franu,rs 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 Novetnber 14, 1980 
includes various items under the bead "agricultural implements". The 
said definition cannot be conimed to the various im.plements specifically 
mentioned therein. The <k'finitli>n being Inclusive it has a wider import 
and any other implement which allswers the ·der;crlption of an agri-
cultural implement can be included bi the terlllition. A !tare reading of 
the notification shows that all the i111p1eme11ts mentioned by the name 
D 
after the word "including ....•••• " are by and Rarge those which are 
used for cultivation of lllDd and other operatlltns which foster the 
groMh and preserve the agricultural prlllluce. :'lone of these imple-
ments can be worked after the agriellltural tJroceus in respect of a crop 
comes to an end. Therefore the· inttntlon of the Jramen of the notlft-
cation could only be to limit the general words in the notification 
E 
to the implements of the Same kind as are specified therein. As such 
sugarr.ane crushers do not come withill the definition of agricultural 
implements. [427F-H; 428A-B I 
F 
G 
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 lhe Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. The short question for our consideration in 
H 
this appeal is whether a sugarcane crusher (kohlu) is an "agricultural 
4, 
D.H. BROS. v. C.0.S.T (KULDIP SINGH, l.] 
425 
implement" within the meaning of U.P. Government notification 
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 agricultura

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.