COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P.versusM/S. KARTOS INTERNATIONAL ETC.

                        [2011] 4 S.C.R. 263

,             COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P.                       A
                                  v.
               M/S. KARTOS INTERNATIONAL ETC.
               (Civil Appeal Nos.2983-2988 of 2011)
                           APRIL 6, 2011
                                                                     B
              [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
                     ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

          Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948: Notification dated
    10.4.2000 - Exemption under - Scientific and biological c
    equipments/instruments used mainly by biological scientists
    for research purpose ~ The said articles manufactured and
    sold to hospitals, medical colleges, advance research
    institutions and laboratories - Held: The equipments would
    not be entitled to benefit of exemption under the said D
    Notification - These equipments fall in the category of
    "Biological Instruments" and are outside the purview of .
    "Biology instruments" which are to be used by students in
    schools and colleges - All the goods mentioned in the entry
    of notification relate to articles used for study of life science
                                                                      E
    in schools and colleges, such as, maps, educational charts,
    scientific mathematical survey, mechanical drawing and
    biology instruments and appar~tus - All of them belong to
    one class as they are the tools for teaming biology and other
    life science - Applying the doctrine of Nositur a Sociis and
                                                                      F
    also ,an considering the intention of the Government for
    issuing the notification granting exemption for teaming life
    science, it is established that no exemption was desired for
    the articlesm.anufactured and sold by the,assessee but it was
    meant exclusively for use by the students of schools and
    colleges - Doctrines/Principles.                                  G

        Doctrines/Principles: Nositur a Sociis - Meaning of.
        Tax/Taxation: Classification of goods. - Basis of - Held:
                                 263                                 H
    . 264       SUPREME COURT REPORTS          (2011) 4 S.C.R.


A The classification of any commodity cannot be made on its
  scientific and technical meaning - It is only the common
  parlance meaning of the term which should be taken into
  consideration for the purpose of determining the tax liability
  - Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948.
B      The assessee-respondent was engaged In the
  manufacture and sale of various "scientific and biological
  equipments/instruments which were used mainly by
  biological scientists for research purposes for which the
  assessee was duly registered under the provisions of
C U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as well as the Central Sales Tax
  Act, 1956. The articles manufactured and sold by the
  respondent were Biological Safety Cabinets; Laminar
  Flow Cabinets; Fume Hoods; Air Showers; Operation
  Theatre Modules; Air Curtains; Air Conditioner Modules;
D Clean Tents; Clean Room Garments; Pass Boxes; Air
  Handling, Filter etc. These articles were sold by the
  respondent to Hospitals, Medical Colleges, Advance
  Research Institutions and Laboratories.
      The question which arose for consideration In the
E Instant appeals filed by the Revenue was whether the
  scientific and blologlcal Instruments/equipments
  manufactured by the assessee were entitled to exemption
  under notification no.1166 dated 10.4.2000.
F           Allowing the appeals, the Court
            HELD: 1. The fact that the assessee himself never
  treated the goods as exempted goods and treated them
  as taxable goods under Section 3-A (1}(C} of the U.P
  Trade Tax Act as unclassified goods and charged full rate
G of tax would make It clear that even the assessee was
  aware of the fact that the goods did not fcftl within ambit
  of the notification dated 10.4.2000. [Para 20] [272-H; 273-
  A-B]                                        '

H           2.1. The Hindi version of the Notification dated
   COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. v. KARTOS               265
             INTERNATIONAL ETC.
10.4.2000 is "Jeev Vigyan Sammandhi Upkaranikayen                A
Aur Sanyantra". That means the instruments which are
used for the study of Life Science (Jeev Vigyan) ·by
students in educational institutions. The various articles
manufactured and sold by the respondent were not
meant for teaching Life Science (Jeev Vigyan). They were         B
meant for Hospital, Medical Colleges and Research
Laboratories which may fall in the category of "Biological
Instruments" and are outside the purview of "Biology
Instruments" to be used by ·the students in educational
institutions. The classification of any commodity cannot         c
be made on its scientific and technical meaning. It is only
the common parlance meaning of the term which should
be taken Into consideration for the purpose of
determining the tax liability. (Paras 22, 23) [273-D-G)
      Maharashtra University of Health Sciences v. Satchikitsa D
Prasarak Manda/ (2010) 3 SCC 786; Ramavatar
Budhaiprasad v. Asstt. STO AIR 1961 SC 1325; Hansraj
Gordhandas v. H. H. Dave, Asst. Collector of Central Excise
and Customs AIR 1970 SC 755 - relied on.
                                                               E
      2.2. There is a vast difference between Biology
Instruments and Biological Instruments. The te,rm
"Biology Instruments" refers to those instruments which
are used in the education of Biology as a subject in the
                                                 ... j-~


educational institutions. It refers to a limited range of F
instruments confined for their use in study of Jeev Vigyan
only. But the words "Biological Instruments" should be
Interpreted in a broader sense, and it includes various
articles which are supplied to hospitals and medical
colleges for various purposes Including research. The
word "Biological Instrument" is a general word with Its G
utility where wide scale applications including the goods
as manufactured by the assessee/respondent are taken.
Government Notification dated 10.4.2000 refers to words
"Biology Instruments". This means that only such articles
as meant for education institutLon for the study of Jeev H
    266     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 4 S.C.R.

A Vigyan such as Maps Chart, Instrument Bcrxes, etc., are
  included in the said notification. Biological Instruments
  are outside the ambit of the said Notification. [Paras 22,
  27] [273-E-F; 276-D-F]

8      3. Nositur a Sociis means that when two words are
  capable of being analogously defined, then they take
  colour from each other. The term ejusdem generis is a
  facet of Nositur a Sociis. The said principle means that
  the general words following certain specific words would
  take colour from the specific words. All these goods
C which are mentioned in the entry of notification dated
  10.04.2000 relate to articles used for study of life science
  in schools and colleges, such as, maps, educational
  charts, scientific mathematical survey, mechanical
  drawing and biology instruments and apparatus. All of
D them belong to one class as they are the tools by using
  which a student would and could learn life science. In the
  said manner, the doctrine of Nositur a Sociis would be
  applicable to the facts of the instant case. The earlier entry
  on the same subject used in notification dated 20.05.1976
E was "Maps, Educational Charts, Instruments Boxes,
  Educational Globes and instruments, such as
  instruments used in Mechanical drawings and Biology
  used by Students." The said entry came to be amended
  subsequently and the entry vide notification dated
F 10.04.2000 was inserted granting exemption to the sales
  of Maps, Educational Charts, Instruments Boxes,
  Educational Globes and Scientific Mathematical Survey,
  Mechanical Drawings and Biology Instruments and
  apparatus. All these items are used by the students
G studying in schools and colleges. A glance at the Items
  manufactured and sold by the respondent would
  establish that what was exempted under notification
  dated 10.04.2000 were basic items to learn the Life
  Science and which were instruments and apparatus for
H learning Biology and other Life Science. Therefore, on/
 . COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. v. KARTOS           267
             INTERNATIONAL ETC.
applicability of the said doctrine and also on considering A
the intention of the Government for issuing the said


                                                                  I
notification granting exemption for learning Life Science,
it is established that no exemption was desired for the
!lrticles manufactured and sold by the respondent but it
was meant exclusively for articles used by the students 8 .
of schools and colleges. The exclusion of the word·
"students" in the sub¥quent notification would not in
any manner materially change the intention for which
such notification is issued. In the instant case, the goods
manufactured and sold by the assessee were not meant C
for Educational Institutions but were meant for Research
Laboratories. Therefore, the commodities in question are
not covered by the said notification dated 10.4.2000, and
are not entitled for exemption. [Paras 29-33, 35, 37] [276-
H; 277-A-H; 278-A-F; 279-A-B]
                                                            D
    MIS Pradeep Agarbatties v. State of Punjab and Others
1997 8 sec 511 - referred to.
                    Case Law Reference:
    c201 O) 3 sec 786       relied on            Para 24      E

    AIR 1961 SC 1325        relied on            Para 25
    AIR 1970 SC 755         relied on            Para 26
    1997 a sec 511          referred to          Para 36      F
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2983-2988 of 2011.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 25.05.2009 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Trade Tax Revision Nos.   G
329, 330, 331, 332, 333 & 334 of 2007.

    Sunil Gupta, Shail Kr. Dwivedi, AAG, Gunnam
Venkateswara Rao, Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Ardendumauli Kr.
Prasad for the Appellant.
                                                              H
    268       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 4 S.C.R.

A       Kavin Gulati, Rashmi Singh, T. Mahipal for the
    Respondent.

          The ·Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
          2. The present appeals are filed against the-impugned
    judgment and order dated 25.5.2009 in TIR No. 329/2007 &
    TIR No. 330/2007 & TIR No. 331/2007 & TIR No. 332/2007
    & TIR No. 333/2007 & TIR No. 334/2007 passed by the High
c   Court whereby the High Court allowed the Trade Tax Revision
    filed by the respondent and reversed the order passed by the
    Trade Tax Tribunal, UP (Noida Bench).

       3. The issue that falls for our consideration in the present
  appeals is whether scientific and biological instruments/
D equipments manufactured and sold by the respondent/
  assessee would be entitled to get exemption from payment of
  tax under the UP Trade Tax Act, 1948 (for short "the UP Act")
  as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "the
  Central Act") in view of the notifications No. 1166 dated
E 10.4.2000. The aforesaid issue was the only issue which was
  decided by the Tribunal i1 favour of the respondent - assessee
  and therefore in this appeal we are required to answer and
  decide the said issue, which is framed by us.

F        4. In order to answer the aforesaid issue which arises for
    our consideration, it would be necessary to set out some facts·
    leading to filing of the present appeals.
       5. The assessee/respondent is a proprietorship firm, which
  is engaged in the manufac.ture and sales of various "scientific \
G and biological equipments/instruments, which are used mainly
  by biological scientists for research purposes for which the ,
  assessee is duly registered under the provisions of U.P. Act
  as well as the Central Act. The assessee/respondent was
  issued a notice by the assessing authority and the assessee
H
   COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. v. KARTOS    269
 INTERNATIONAL ETC. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

appeared before the assessing authority and claimed that the         A
goods sold by it are exempted from tax in view of the notification
no. 1166 dated 10.4.2000 and al~o claimed relief on account
of Inter-State sales made to various government organisations
and institutions against the Forms 30 and D.
                                                                     B
       6. The Assessing Authority, after examining the accounts
, and details, issued a show cause notice to the assessee
  proposing to make the best judgment assessment on the basis
  of an inference that the assessee had effected sales at
  concessional rate of tax to various organizations against the C
  declaration of form 30 and form D even though the said
  organizations were not the Government organisations and no
  benefits of concessional rate of tax could have been claimed
  by the assessee. The assessing authority further took a view
  that the goods sold by the assessee are not covered by the
  notification No. 1166 dated 10.4.2000 ~nd hence the goods D
  of the assessee were liable to be taxed at the rate of 10% as
  unclassified goods.
      7. The assessee replied to the show cause notice and
 stated that the goods sold by the assessee are fully covered        E
 by the notification no. 1166 dated 10.4.2000 and that the
 assessee had charged and deposited tax at concessional rate
 on the Intra-State sales as well as Inter-State sales made to
 various Government Organizations and institutions but claimed
 that it was exempted under the said notification also.              F
      8. The explanation as submitted by the assessee was not
 accepted by the assessing authority and assessment orders
 were p-assed on 20.2.2004, 17.3.2005 and 30.3.2005 for the
 Assessment Year 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 1998-1999
 respectively and the tax was levied under the UP Act and also       G
 under the Central Act. The Assessing Authority has accepted
 books of accounts of the assessee as well as declared turnover
 but rejected the benefits of declaration Form 3~0/D and on the
 Intra-State/ inter-state sales made to the Central/ State
 Government organizations and also treated the goods as              H
    270      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 4 S.C.R.


A unclassified goods, declining it to grant benefit of exemption
  under notification no.1166 dated 10.4.2000 holding that the
  assessee is not entitled to get exemption under the aforesaid
  notification.

       9. Thereafter, appeals were filed before the Joint
8
  Commissioner (Appeals) and by its common order dated
  31.12.2005, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed both
  the appeals holding that the equipment manufactured and sold
  by the respondent are used as instruments in the research
C laboratories for maintaining the environment free from bacteria,
  and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to claim
  exemption.

       10. The Assessee/Respondent filed appeals before the
  Trade Tax Tribunal, UP (Noida Bench) and the Tribunal by an
D order dated 21.2.2007 dismissed the appeals filed by the
  assessee/respondent holding that only such articles are
  exempted from tax which are used for educating children such
  as maps, charts, instrumental box, educational globe, biology
  instruments, and not those used for research purposes.
E
        11. Thereafter, a Trade Tax Revision under Section 11 of
  the Trade Tax Act, 1948 was filed by the Respondent before
  the High Court of Allahabad and the High Court by its impugned
  judgment and order upheld the contention of the assessee/
F respondent and held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit
  of notification No. 1166 dated 10.4.2000 holding that the
  description of the goods made in the notification has been
  clarified to be used by all the persons. While coming to such
  conclusions, reference was also made to the Hindi version of
  the notification dated 10.4.2000 holding that the same makes
G it clear that the exemption has been granted to the instrument
  which has been used.
       12. The aforesaid findings and conclusions arrived at by
  the High Court are under challenge in these appeals on which
H we heard the learned counsel ai:pearing for the parties.
   COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. v. KARTOS · 271
 INTERNATIONAL ETC. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
        13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted    A
· that the words "biology instruments" necessarily mean the
  instruments, which are used by the students in educational
  institutions, more particularly, in schools and colleges and not
  in research institutions. It was also submitted that each word
  of the notification must be distinctly read to take colour from    s
  the preceding words by applying the principle of ejusdem
  generis. Next submission was that the equipments
  manufactured by the assessee could not be clubbed with other
  items as mentioned in the notification as the goods
  manufactured by the assessee are not similar or identical as       c
  that of the goods mentioned in the notification. It was also
  contended that the words "biology" instruments and apparatus
  are confined to the items used in the study of science of
   physical life in respect of plants and animals in school and
  colleges but the goods in question supplied by the respondent      D
   are used in laboratories and research institute.

      14. It was further submitted that the assessee himself never
 treated the goods in question as "exempted goods" but treated
 them as "taxable goods" under Section 3-A{1){C) of the U.P.
 Act as unclassified goods and the assessee charged full rate        E
 of tax as is evident from the various cash memos, which are
 on record and also claimed concessional rate of ta.x against
 the Form 30 {U.P. Act) and Form D {Central Act).

       15. It was further submitted that the plain language of the   F
 notification is to be read for the purpose of understanding its
 language and the common parlance meaning or the popular
 sense meaning should be preferred over the technical or
 scientific meaning of the items and since the goods
 manufactured by the assessee are not being used for the study       G
 of biology, the same is not entitled for exemption from tax.
 Reliance was also placed by the counsel for the appellant on
 the Hindi version of the notification, which classifies it as
 relatable to life science {Jeev Biology) taught in schools and
 colleges.
                                                                     H
    272      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 4 S.C.R.

A         16. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent,
    however, refuted the aforesaid contentions of the appellant and
  . submitted that the equipments and instruments which are being
    manufactured by the assessee/respondent are mainly used for
    providing a safe environment for scientific experiments and
    research work and also they are used for the safety of scientists
8
    who· are engaged in micro-biological research, diagnostic
    laboratories, hospitals and operation theatres. According to the
    counsel these equipments are used by persons, who undertake
    research work on high risk diseases like T.B, Hepatitis B, who
C are prone to get it and are at a higher risk of being infected by
    agents/ bacteria which they handle and therefore, the
    surroundings where such research work is being undertaken
    requires to be made free from contamination to prevent, reduce
    or eliminate the risk of spread of infectious disease. He urged
   that the main purpose of these equipments is to provide
D bacteria/dust free i.e bio-clean environment in the working
   chamber to prevent the risk of infections and the same are
   entitled for exemption.
       17. It.was further submitted that the word "biology" and
E "biological" are not different from each other and are
  interchangeable.
        18. It was also submitted on behalf of the respondent that
  the entry also contains the word "maps" and "survey instruments
  and apparatus". The maps are used by the school students
F alone, however, these apparatus are also used by the numerous
  people including geologists. It was contended that the
  notification does not only include the word biology instruments
  and apparatus, but also includes sci~ntific instruments ..
G        19. On the basis of the submissions made by the learned
    counsel appearing for the parties, we have perused the
    records.
        20. The fact that the assessee himself never treated the
H
    COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. v. KARTOS    273
  INTERNATIONAL ETC. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.] .
 goods as exempted goods and treated them as taxable goods           A
 under Section 3-A(1)(C) of the U.P Act as unclassified goods
 and charged full rate of tax makes it clear that even the
 assessee was aware of the fact that the goods does. not fall
 within ambit of the notification dated 10.4.2000.
                                                                   B
      21. The other issue that came for consideration is whether
 there is a difference between the term "Biology Instruments" and
 "Biological Instruments". The term "Biology Instruments" refers ·
 to those instruments which are used in the education of Biology
 as a subject in the educational institutions. But the words C
 "Biological Instruments" should be interpreted in a broader
 sense, and it includes various articles which are supplied to
 hospitals and medical colleges for various purposes including
 research.
       22. The Hindi version of the Notification dated 10.4.2000 D
 is •Jeev Vigyan Sammandhi Upkaranikayen Aur Sanyantra".
 That means the instruments which are used for the study of Lift!
 Science (Jeev Vigyan) by students in educational institutions.
 The various articles in question as manufactured and sold by
 the respondent are not meant for teaching Life Science (Jeev e
 Vigyan) to be taught in educational Institutions. The articles in
 question are meant for Hospital, Medical Colleges and
 Research Laboratories which may fall in the category of
 "Biological Instruments" and are outside the purview of "Biology
 Instruments" to be used by the students in educational F
 institutions.
        23. Moreover, classification of any commodity cannot be
  made on its scientific and technical meaning. It is only the
  common parlance meaning of the term which should be taken
  into consideration for the purpose of determining the tax liability. G
   In the present case the commodities that have been grouped
. together are articles used in Education Institutions such as
 · Maps Chart, Sketch Map, Instrument Box, Educational Globes
, etc.
                                                                       H
    274        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 4 S.C.R.


A        24. This Court in the case of Maharashtra University of
    Health Sciences Vs. Satchikitsa Prasarak Manda/ reported
    in (2010) 3 sec 786 held as follows:-
          "27. The Latin expression "ejusdem generis" which means
          "of the same kind or nature" is a principle of construction,
B
          meaning thereby when general words in a statutory text are
          flanked by restricted words, the meaning of the general
          words are taken to be restricted by implication with the
          meaning of the restricted words. This is a principle which
          arises "from the linguistic implication by which words
c         having literally a wide meaning (when taken in isolation)
          are treated as reduced in scope by the verbal context". It
          may be regarded as an instance of ellipsis, or reliance on
          implication. This principle is presumed to apply unless
          there is some contrary indication (see Glanville Williams,
D         The Origins and Logical Implications of the Ejusdem
          Generis Rule, 7 Conv (NS) 119}.

                34. It is also one of the cardinal canons of
          construction that no statute can be interpreted in such a
E         way as to render a part of it otiose. It is, therefore, clear
          where there is a different legislative intent, as in this case,
          the principle of ejusdem generis cannot be applied to
          make a part of the definition completely redundant."
       25. This Court in the case of Ramavatar Budhaiprasad
F v. Asstt. STO reported in AIR 1961 SC 1325 stated technical
  meaning of a commodity cannot be a basis for adjudicating the
  classification and held as follows
                 "3 ........ Reliance was placed on the dictionary
G         meaning of the word "vegetable" as given in Shorter
          Oxford Dictionary where the word is defined as "of or
          pertaining to, comprised or consisting of, or derived, or
          obt13ined from plants or their parts". But this word must be
          construed not in any technical sense nor from the botanical
H
  COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. v. KARTOS    275
INTERNATIONAL ETC. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

    point of view but as understood in common parlance. It has A
    not been defined in the Act and being a word of every day
    use it must be construed in its popular sense meaning "that
    sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with
    which the statute is dealing would attribute to it". It is to be
    construed as understood in common language; Craies 8
    on Statute Law, p. 153 (5th Edn.). It was so held in
    Planters Nut Chocolate Co. Ltd. v. The King 1. This
    interpretation was accepted by the High Court of Madhya
    Pradesh in Madhya Pradesh Pan Merchants'
    Association, Santra Market, Nagpur v. The State of C
    Madhya Pradesh (Sales Tax Department) 2 where it was
    observed:

    "In our opinion, the word 'vegetables' cannot be given the
    comprehensive meaning the term bears in natural history
    and has not been given that meaning in taxing statutes              D
    before. The term 'vegetables' is to be understood as
    commonly understood denoting those 'classes of vegetable
    matter which are grown in kitchen gardens and are used
    for the table.'"
                                                                        E
                                             (emphasis supplied).

     26. In Hansraj Gordhandas Vs. H.H. Dave, Asst. Collector
of Central Excise and Customs reported in AIR 1970 SC 755,
this Court held as follows:-
                                                                        F
    "It is well established that in a taxing statute there is no room
    for any intendment but regard must be had to the clear
    meaning of the words. The entire matter is governed
    wholly ~Y the language of the notification. If the tax-payer
    is within the plain terms of the exemption it cannot be             G
    denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention
    of the exempting authority. If such intention can be
    gathered from the construction of the words of the
    notification or by necessary implication therefrom, the
    matter is different, but that is not the case here. In this         H
    276        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 4 S.C.R.


A         connection we may refer to the observations of Lord
          Watson in Salomon v. Salomon & Co. 1:

                 "Intention of the legislature is a common but very
          slippery phrase, which, popularly understood may signify
          anything from intention embodied in positive enactment to
B         speculative opinion as to what the legislature probably
          would have meant, although there has been an omission
          to enact it. In a Court of Law or Equity, what the Legislature
          intended to be done or not to be done can only be
          legitimately ascertained from that which it has chosen to
c         enact, either in express words or by reasonable and
          necessary implication."

        27. It would also be relevant to mention here that there is
  a vast difference between Biology Instruments and Biological
o Instruments. The term Biology Instrument refers to a limited
  range of instruments confined for their use in study of Jeev
  Vigyan only. The word Biological Instrument is a general word
  with its utility where wide scale applications including the goods
  as manufactured by the assessee/respondent are taken. In the
E Government Notification dated 10.4.2000, the words Biology
  Instruments have been referred. This means that only such
  articles as meant for education institution for the study of Jeev
  Vigyan such as Maps Chart, Instrument Boxes, etc., are
  included in the notification in question. Biological Instruments
F are outside the ambit of the said Notification. The term
  "Biological Instruments" is the most general term, which
  comprises of goods manufactured and sold by the respondent.
  But such goods are certainly not Biology goods.
       28. In the light of the aforesaid decisions of this Court we
G must analyse as to whether or not the principles of Nositur a
  Sociis or the principle of ejusdem generis could be said to be
  applicable on the facts of the present case.
      29. Nositur a Sociis means that when two words are
H capable of being analogously defined, then they take colour
   COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. v. KARTOS    277
 INTERNATIONAL ETC. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

from each other. The term ejusdem generis is a facet of Nositur      A
a Sociis. The aforesaid principle means that the general words
following certain specific words would take colour from the
specific words.

     30. The counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that      B
the aforesaid principles, particularly, the principle of Nositur a
Sociis would be applicable to the facts of the present case. The
counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that
the aforesaid principle would have no application to the facts
of the present case as the words in the entry do not represent
a homogenous class as maps, educational charts, scientific           C
mathematical survey, mechanical drawing and biology
instruments and apparatus, all belong to different categories of
goods and they are not followed by any general words.

      31. We are unable to accept the aforesaid stand of the         D
counsel appearing for the respondents for all these goods
which are mentioned in the aforesaid entry of the notification
relate to articles used for study of life science in schools and
colleges, such as, maps, educational charts, scientific
mathematical survey, mechanical drawing and biology                  E
instruments and apparatus. All of them belong to one class as
they are the tools by using which a student would and could learn
life science. In the aforesaid manner the doctrine of Nositur a
Sociis would be applicable to the facts of the present case.

      32. At this stage reference could also be made to the
                                                                     F
earlier entry on the same subject which was used in the
notification dated 20.05.1976. In the said notification the entry
was in the following manner:

    "Maps, Educational Charts, Instruments Boxes,                    G
    Educational Globes and instruments, such as instruments
    used in Mechanical drawings and Biology used by
    Students."

    33. The aforesaid entry came to be amended subsequently          H
    278      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 4 S.C.R.


A and the entry vide notification dated 10.04.2000 was inserted
  granting exemption to the sales of Maps, Educational Charts,
  Instruments Boxes, Educational Globes and Scientific
  Mathematical Survey, Mechanical Drawings and Biology
  instruments and apparatus. All these items are used by the
B students studying in schools and colleges.

       34. The respondent on the other hand manufacture and sell
  the articles, such as, Bilogical Safety Cabinets; Laminar Flow
  Cabinets; Fume Hoods; Air Showers; Operation Theatre
C Modules; Air Curtains; Air Conditioner Modules; Clean Tents;
  Clean Room Garments; Pass Boxes; Air Handling, Filter etc.
  These articles are manufactured and sold by the respondent
  to Hospitals, Medical Colleges, Advance Research Institutions
  and Laboratories.

D       35. A glance at the aforesaid items would establish that
  what is exempted under notification dated 10.04.2000 are
  basic items to learn the Life Science and which are instruments
  and apparatus for learning Biology and other Life Science.
  Therefore, on applicability of the aforesaid doctrine and also
E on considering the intention of the Government for issuing the
  aforesaid notification granting exemption for learning Life
  Science it is established that no exemption was desired for the
  articles manufactured and sold by the respondent but it was
  meant exclusively for articles used by the students of schools
F and colleges. The exclusion of the word students in the
  subsequent notification would not in any manner materially
  change the intention for which such notification is issued.

       36. This Court in the case of MIS Pradeep Agarbatties V.
G State of Punjab and Others 1997 8 SCC 511, held that: -

        "Entries in the Schedule of sales tax and Excise Statues
        list some articles separately and some articles are grouped
      · together, when they are grouped together each word in the
        entry draws colour from the other words, therein. This is
H       the principle of NOSITUR A SOCllS."
  COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. v. KARTOS    279
INTERNATIONAL ETC. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
     37. In the present case, the goods manufactured and sold        A
by the assessee are not meant for Educational Institutions but
are meant for Research Laboratories. Hence the commodities
in question are not covered by the said notification dated
10.4.2000, and are not entitled for exemption.
                                                                     B
    38. In view of the aforesaid discussion and law laid down
by the Supreme Court in earlier decisions, we are of the
considered opinion that the appeals deserve to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The order passed by the
High Court is set aside and the order of the Tribunal is restored.   C

D.G.                                           Appeals allowed.