Holding

A sugarcane crusher is not an agricultural implement and therefore is not exempt from sales tax.

Summary

D.H. Brothers Pvt. Ltd., a dealer in machinery, claimed that a sugarcane crusher (kohlu) was an "agricultural implement" exempt from sales tax under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948, relying on a 14 November 1980 government notification that listed exempt agricultural implements. The Commissioner of Sales Tax rejected the claim, a decision upheld by the Sales Tax Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the crusher fell within the notification's definition, emphasizing that the agricultural process ends at harvest and that post‑harvest processing (e.g., making gur) is a manufacturing activity. The Court held that the notification, though inclusive, was intended to cover implements used for cultivation and related field operations, not equipment used after harvest. Consequently, a sugarcane crusher is not an agricultural implement and is liable to sales tax. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a sugarcane crusher (kohlu) qualifies as an "agricultural implement" within the meaning of the Uttar Pradesh Government notification dated 14 November 1980.
Whether such a classification would render the crusher exempt from levy of sales tax under Section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Legislation cited

U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948s. 10, s. 11, s. 35, s. 4

Subjects

sales taxagricultural implementexemptiontax legislation interpretationlegislative intentsugarcane crusherUttar Pradeshnotification

Judgment

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

AUGUST 8, 1991

[KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] B

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--
c
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.

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, G

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]
H

423
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
c 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

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5047
(NT) of 1985.
F
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.
G
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
D.H. BROS. v. C.0.S.T (KULDIP SINGH, l.] 425

implement" within the meaning of U.P. Government notification
A
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
B
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 agricultural implements
from the levy of sales tax. Thereafter fresh notifications were issued
from the time to time. The relevant notification dated November 14,
1980 enumerated the "Agricultural implements" as under:
c
"Agricultural implements" worked by hum,~n or animal
power, including Khurpi, bibbler, Spade, Hansia (Sickle),
Garden Knife, Axe, Gandasa, Chaff Cutter~, Shears,
' leather
Secateurs, Rake, Shovel, Ploughs, Water lifting
buckets (Pur and Mhot), Rabat and persian whell, Chain D
Pump, Harrows, Hoes, Cultivators, Seed Drills, Thres-
hers, Shellers, Winnowing fans, Paddy weeders, Garden
fork, Lopper), Belcha, Bill Hook (Double edge), Kudali,
Fork, garden Hatchet, Bill Hook (Single edge), Hay
Bailer, Bund formers, Scrappers, Levellers or Levelling
Karahas, Yokes, crop yield Judginghoops, Hand sprayers El
Hand dusters, Animal driven vehicles including carts
having pneumatic tyre wheels, crow bars, sugarcane
Planters and accessories, attachments and spare parts of
these agricultural implements".

F';
The assesse.e invoked the jurisdiction of Commissioner, Sales
Tax, Uttar Pradesh under Section 35 of the Act claiming that the
Kohlu meant for extracting juice from sugarcane was an agricultural
i.mplement within the above quoted notification and as such was
exempt from levy of Sales Tax. The Commissioner by his order dated
December 31, 1983 decided the question against the assessee. The G
assessee filed appeal against the said order before the Sales Tax Tri-
4, bunal. Lucknow Bench, under Section 10 of the Act. The Tribunal
upheld the findings of the Commissioner and dismissed the appeal.
Thereafter the assessee preferred a revision petition under Section 11
of the Act before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court relying
on its earlier decis~on in Bharat Engirieerin_K_and Foundry Works v. H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R.

A The U.P. Government, [1963] 14 S.T.C. 262 dismissed the revision
petition. In that case the question for consideration before the High
Court was "whether cane crushers are agricultural implements within
the meaning of the words 'agricultural implements' as mentioned in +·
the Government Notification ....... and hence exempt from U.P.
sales tax." The question was answered in the negative on the following
B reasoning:

"Cane crushers and boiling pans are used only in the
manufacture of gur from . sugarcane. Sugarcane is an
agriCultural produce and the process which results in the
production of sugarcane ilundoubtedly agriculture, but the
c production of gur from sugarcane is a manufacturing
process and not an agricultural process. The agricultural
process comes to an end with the production of sugarcane
. and when gur is subsequently being prepared i.t is manufac-
turing process that commences. Merely because sugarcane
is an agricultural produce anything that is done to it after it
D
is product is not necessarily a continuation of the agri-
cultural process. It cannot be doubted that agricultural pro-
duce can the subjected to a manufacturing process; merely +-.
because gur is produced out of sugarcane which is an
agricultural produce, the process of preparing gur does not
become an agricultural process .......... An. agricultural
implement is an implement that is used in agriculture; any
implement that is used after the agricultural process comes
to an end and a manufacturing process commences, is not
an agricultural implement."
•
The High Court in Bharat Engineering case relied upon the fol-
F
lowing obsevations of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, West
Bengal, Calcutta v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, [1957) 32 I. T .R.
466:

"Agricultmre is the basic idea underlying the expressions
'agricultural purposes' and 'agricultural operations' and it
G is pertinent.therefore to enquire what is the connotation of
the term 'agriculture'. As we have noted above, the
primary sense in which the term agriculture is understood is
agar-field and cultracultivation, i.e., the cultivation of the
•
field, and if the term is understood only in that sense
agriculture would be restricted only to cultivation of the
H
JJ.H. BROS. v. C.0.S.T (KULDIP SINGH, J.] 427

land in the strict sense of the term meaning thereby, tilling
A
of th~ land, sowing of the seeds, planting and similar opera-
tions on the land. They would be the basic operations and
would require the expenditure of human skill and labour
upon the land itself. There are however other operations
which have got to be resorted to by the agriculturist and
which are absolutely necessary for the purpose of effec- B
tively raising the produce from the land. They are opera-
tions to be performed after the produce sprouts from the
land, e.g., weeding, digging the soil arodnd the growth,
removal of undesirable undergrowths and all operations
which foster the growth and preserve the same not only
from insects and pests but also from depradation from out- C
side, tending, pruning, cutting, harvesting, and rendering
the produce fit for the market. The latter would all be
agricultural operations when taken in conjunction with the·
basic operations above described, and it would be futile to
urge that they are not agricultural operations at all
,,
D

--l It is clear from the above quoted observations of this Court that
the agricultural process comes to an end when the crop is harvested
and is brought home for marketing or for further processing. In the
present case the agricultural process finishes when sugarcane is
harvested. Preparation of gur from sugarcane is not the continuation E
of the agricultural process.

... While giving meaning to an item in a taxing statute the Courts
should give it a meaning as intended by the framers of the statute by
looking at the various items mentioned in a particular group. The
items in one group should be considered in a genderic sense. The F
notification dated November 14, 1980 includes various items under the
head "agricultural implements". It is no doubt correct that the said
definition cannot be confined to the various implements specifically
mentioned therein. The definition being inclusive it has a wider import
and any other implement which answers the description of an agri-
cultural implement can_be included in the definition. A bare reading of G
the notific.,tion, however, shows tha! all the implements mentioned by
name after the word "including ........ " are by and large those
which are used for cultivation of land and other operations which
foster the growth and preserve the agricultural produce. None of these
implements can be worked after the agricultural process in respect of a
crop comes to an end. Therefore the intention of the framers of ihe H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R.

A notification could only be to limit the general words in the notification
to the implements of the same kind as are specified therein. We are,
therefore, of the view that on the plain reading of the notification the
· sugarcane crushers do not come within the definition of agricultural ...i,.-•
implements.
B
It has been brought to our notice that from 1985 onwards the
State Government has specifically exempted sugarcane crushers from
the levy of sales tax.

We dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.

C G.N. Appeal dismissed.