M/S. BANSAL WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

                          [2011] 7 S.C.R. 416


  A       M/S. BANSAL WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR.
                                    v.
                      STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal No.3605 of 2011)
                            APRIL 26, 2011
  B
                 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
                        ANIL R..DAVE, JJ.]

          Central Sales Tax Act, 1956:
  c
          s. 14(iv) - Restrictions on power of States to tax "declared
    goods" - Items mentioned in clause (iv) of s. 14 - Categories
    falling under "iron and steel" - Tax on sales of "stainless steel
    wire" - Held:"Stainless steel wire" is not covered under the
  D entry of "tools, all~ys and special steels" in entry no. (ix) of
    clause (iv) and, therefore, does not fall under "Iron and Steel".
    as defined under s. 14(iv) - "Stain.'ess steel wire" also cannot
    be read into item no. (xv) whfch reads as "wire rods and wires-
    rolled, drawn, galvanized, aluminized, tinned or coated such
  E as by copper" - Expression "Wire rods and wires" which is
    mentioned in item no. (xv) would not and cannot cover the
    expression "tools, alloy and special steels" of entry no. (ix) nor
    it would refer to the expression "Iron and Steel" as each item
    used in entry nos. (ix) and (xv) are independent items not
    depending on each other at all - Hence, "stainless steel wire"
  F cannot be treated as a declared commodity under s. 14.
        Transformation of commercial commodity - Effect of -
    Held: When one commercial commodity is, by manufacturing
    process etc., transformed Into another, it becomes a separate
  G commodity for sales tax purposes.

          Interpretation of Statutes:

          Plain interpretation - Held: When the language of the

.. H                               416
   BANSAL WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. v.              417
                STATE OF U.P.
statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect   A
to the words used in the statute.

     Taxing statute - Held: In a taxing Act one has to look
merely at what is clearly said and there is no room for any
intendment - In a taxing statute nothing is to be read in,     B
nothing is to be implied, one can only look fairly at the
language used.

      Words and Phrases - Expression "that is to sayn as in
s. 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act - Meaning of.
                                                               c
     The appellant is a Public Limited Company engaged
in the business of manufacture and sales of "stainless
steel wires". According to it, "stainless steel wire", being
a form of "Iron and Steel" is a declared commodity under
clause(iv) of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956,   o
and consequently in view of Section 15 thereof, no tax
can be imposed on "stainless steel wire" in excess of 4%.
     In the instant appeals, the question which arose for
consideratio·n was whether in view of Section 14 of the
Central Sales Tax Act along with the qualifying words E
'that is to say' as used in clause (iv) of Section 14,
"stainless steel wire" would fall under the category "tools,
alloy and special steels of any of the above categories" ·
as enumerated in entry no.(ix) of clause (Iv) or under the
category "wire rods and wires-rolled, drawn, galvanized, F
aluminized, tinned or coated such as by copper" as
enumerated in entry no.(xv) of the same clause (iv).
    Dismissing the appeals, the Court
    HELD:1. The Parliament can restrict powers of State        G
Government to tax "declared goods". Section 2(c) of the
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 defines "declared goods" as
those declared under Section 14 of Central Sales Tax Act
as 'goods of special importance in Inter State Trade or
Commerce. Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act gives        H
    418     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 7 S.C.R.


A a list of such goods and Section 15 specifies restrictions
  on power of States to tax such goods. [Para 31] [432-D]
         2.1. In an earlier Supreme Court decision, the word
    "that is to say", as per Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax
8   Act was considered and it was held that originally the
    expression "that is to say" was employed to make clear
    and fix the meaning of what is to be explained or defined
    and that such words are not used, as a rule, to amplify a
    meaning while re_moving a possible doubt for which
C   purpose the word "includes" is generally employed. In
    the context of Section 14 of the Central Act, this Court in
    the said decision held that the expression "that is to say"
    is used in Section 14 apparently to mean to exhaustively
    enumerate the kinds of goods in a given list. It was also
    held in the said decision that the purpose of an
D   enumeration in a statute dealing with sales tax at a single
    point in a series of sales would, very naturally, be to
    indicate the types of goods each of which would
    constitute a separate class for a series of sales.
    Therefore, in view of the position settled by this Court, it
E   is clearly established that so far the items as mentioned
    in clause (iv) of Section 14 of the Central Act is
    concerned, each of the categories falling under "iron and
    steel" constitutes a new species and each one of them
    is separate commodity for the purposes of sales tax.
F   [Paras 26, 27] [429-G-H; 430-A-E]
       2.2. The expression "of any of the above categories"
  appearing in entry Nos. (ix) and (xvi) of clause (iv) of
  Section 14 of the Central Act would indicate that they
G would each be items referred in the preceding items.
  Therefore, even the expression "of any of the above
  categories" in entry No. (ix) of clause (iv) would only
  relate to steel and alloy produced for any of the materials
  mentioned in item nos. (i) to (viii). Thus "stainless steel
  wire" produced by the appellant cannot be read into item
H
  BANSAL WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. v.               419
               STATE OF U.P.
no. (xv) which reads as "wire rods and wires-rolled,           A
drawn, galvanized, aluminized, tinned or coated such as
by copper". [Para 28] [430-F-H]
     2.3. If the object of newly substituted clause (Iv) of
Section 14 of the Central Act was to make iron and steel       B
taxable as one substance, the item could have been
"Goods of iron and steel" or, to be more clear, "Iron and
steel irrespective of change of form or shape or character
of goods made out of them". The more natural meaning,
therefore is that each item specified in Section 14(iv)        C
forms a separate species for each series of sales. When
one commercial commodity is, by manufacturing process
etc., transformed into another, it becomes a separate
commodity for sales tax purposes. If iron bars were drawn
into "wire", such wire shall be a different taxable
commodity. [Para 30] [432-A-C]                                 D
    2.4. The language used in entry no. (ix) is plain and
unambiguous and that the items which are mentioned
there are "tools, alloy and special steel". By using the
words "of any of the above categories" in entry Nos. (ix)      E
would refer to entries (i) to (viii) and it cannot and does
not refer to entry no (xv). The stainless steel wire is not
covered within entry (ix) of clause (iv) of Section 14 of
Central Sales Tax Act. [Para 33] [433-0-F]

     State of Tamil Nadu vs. Mis. Pyare Lal Mehrotra, (1976)   F
1 SCC 834: 1976 (2) SCR 168 and Rajasthan Roller Flour
Mills Assn. vs. State of Rajasthan, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 413:
1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 979 - relied on.

     3. It is a settled principle of law that the words used G
in the section, rule or notification should not be rendered
redundant and should be given effect to. It is also one of
the cardinal principles of interpretation of any statute that
some meaning must be given to the words used in the
                                                              H
    420      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2011) 7 S.C.R.


A section. Expression "Wire rods and wires" which is
  mentioned in item no. (xv) would not and cannot cover
  the expression "tools, alloy and special steels" of entry
  no~ (ix) nor it would refer to the expression "Iron and
  Steel" as each item used in entry nos. (ix) and (xv) are
B independent items not depending on each other at all.
  [Para 34] [433-G-H; 434-A-B]

       4. It is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute
  that when the language of the statute ·is plain and
  unambiguous, the court must give effect to the words
C used in the statute. Besides, in a taxing Act one has to
  look merely at what is clearly said and there is no room
  for any intendment. In a taxing statute nothing is to be
  read in, nothing is to be implied, one can only look fairly
  at the language used. [Paras 35, 36] [434-B-D]
D
       Union of India vs. Hanso/i Devi (2002) 7 SCC 273: 2002
  (2) Suppl. SCR 324 - relied on.

       5. The findings and the decision arrived at by the
E High Court that stainless steel wire is not covered under
  the entry of "tools, alloys and special steels" in entry no.
  (ix) and, therefore, does not fall under "Iron and Steel" as
  defined under Section 14(iv) of the Central Act have to be
  upheld. Hence, the said commodity cannot be treated as
  a declared commodity under Section 14 of the Act and
F provision of Section 15 of the Act does not apply to the
  facts of the instant appeals. [Para 37) [434-E]
                        Case Law Reference:
          1976 (2) SCR 168         relied on      Para 24,
G
                                                  26,29,34
          1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 979 relied on       Para 31
          2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 324 relied on       Para 35
H
   BANSAL WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. v.                   421
                STATE OF U.P.
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.                  A
3605 of 2011.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 21.5.2010 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
778 (Tax) of 2006.                                                   B

                             WITH

C.A. Nos. 3606, 3607, 3608, 3609 & 3610 of 2011.

     Dhruv Agarwal, Praveen Kumar for the Appellants.                c
    Sunil Gupta, S.K. Dwivedi, Aarohi Bhalla, Gunnam
Venkateswara Rao, Vandana Mishra, Tanmay Agarwal,
Ashutosh S., Aviral Shukla for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                       D

     DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. The issue that falls for consideration in these appeals
is, as to whether the 'stainless steel wire' falls under the
category, "tools, alloys and special steels of any of the above      E
categories" enumerated in entry no. (ix) of clause (iv) of Section
14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short the "Central
Act") and therefore the following question emerges for our
consideration:-
                                                                     F
     "Whether stainless steel wire, a product of the appellant,
     on a proper reading of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax
     Act along with the qualifying words 'that is to say' would
     fall under the category "tools, alloy and special steels of
     any of the above categories" enumerated in entry no. (ix)       G
     of clause (iv) or under entry no. (xv) of same clause (iv)"

     3. In all these appeals identical issues are involved. We
therefore, proceed to dispose of all these appeals by this
common Judgment and Order. In order to arrive at a finding on
                                                                     H
    422     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 7 S.C.R.


A   the issue raised, it will be necessary to set out certain facts
    leading to filing of the present appeals.

      4. The appellant is a Public Limited Company incorporated
  under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the
  business of manufacture and sales of "stainless steel wi'res".
8
  An assessment order was passed under Rule 41 (8) of the UP
  Trade Tax Rules for the assessment year 1999-2000 under the
  UP Trade Tax Act, 1948 (for short "the UP Act") as well as under
  the Central Act. As per the said assessment order, the tax on
C sales of "stainless steel wire" was levied @ 4% and sales
  covered by Form 3-kh were taxed@ 2%.

       5. The respondent, however, thereafter held that the sales
  of "stainless steel wire" has wrongly been taxed @ 4% treating
  the same as a "declared commodity" and that in fact "stainless
D steel wire" is not a declared commodity because it is outside
  the ambit of "Iron and Steel", which is a declared commodity
  under Section 14 of the Central Act.

       6. In view of the satisfaction arrived at by the respondent,
E a proposal was sent to the Additional Commissioner, Grade-I,
  Trade Tax, Ghaziabad Zone, Ghaziabad requesting him for
  permission to re-open the case of the appellant for the
  assessment year 1999-2000.

         7. The Additional Commissioner, Grade-I, Trade Tax,
F   Ghaziabad Zone, Ghaziabad issued a notice dated 22.03.2006
    directing the appellant to show cause as to why the permission
    should not be granted to the assessing authority for re-opening
    of the case under Section 21(2) of the UP Act.

G        8. Respondent No. 3 on 24.3.2006 issued a notice under
    Section 10-B of the U.P. Act for revising the assessment order
    passed for the assessment year 2000-01. The appellant states
    that similar notices for the assessment years 2001-02 and
    2002-03 were also issued to the appellant by Respondent No.
H 3.
  BANSAL WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. v.                     423
 STATE OF \J.P. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.)
     9. The appellant filed its reply dated 27.3.2006 to the • A
notice dated 24.3.2006 and, inter alia, stated that "stainless
steel wire" is a declared commodity under clause (iv) of Section
14 of the Central Act, hence in view of Section 15 thereof, no
tax can be imposed on the declared commodities in excess
of 4%. The appellant had also submitted identical replies to the B
notices relating to assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03
respectively.

     10. After considering the reply as furnished by the
appellant, the Additional Commissioner, Grade-I, Trade Tax,           C
Ghaziabad Zone, Ghaziabad by its order dated 27.03.2006
granted permission to the assessing authority to re-open the
case under Section 21(2) of the UP Act for the assessment
year 1999-2000.

     11. Being aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid             D
notice, the appellant herein filed a Writ Petition before the
Allahabad High Court, which was registered as Writ Petition
No. 770 of 2006, wherein, the respondent filed a counter
affidavit. The Allahabad High Court, thereafter heard the
counsel appearing for the parties and by its judgment and order       E
dated 21.05.2010 dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the
"stainless steel wire" is not covered under the item "tools, alloys
and special steel" on entry no. (ix) and, therefore, does not fall
under "Iron and Steel'' as defined under clause (iv) of Section
14 of the Central Act and therefore the provision of Section 15       F
of the Central Act does not apply.

    12. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
21.05.2010 passed by the Allahabad High Court, the present
appeals were filed by the appellants on which we heard the
learned counsel appearing for the parties.                            G

     13. The learned counsel appearing for the parties during
the course of their submissions relied upon various notifications,
some of which are required to be extracted at this stage.
                                                                      H
     424      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 7 S.C.R.


IA      14. The first reference that was made was to the
  notification dated 26.10.1991. The afore$aid notification was
  issued by respondent No. 1 in exercise of powers under clause
  (d) of sub-section (1) of section 3-A of the U.P. Act, whereby
  under Item 7, Sheets and Circles made wholly or principally of
B stainless steel and all remaining articles (excluding wares and
  surgical instruments) made wholly or principally of stainless steel
  were taxable@ 12%.

         The relevant part of the said notification is extracted herein
     below:
c
     "S.No. Description of goods           Point of tax    Rate of tax

     (a)     Sheets and circles made       M or I          12%
             wholly or principally of
D            stainless steel.

     (b}     All remaining articles     M or I                 12%
             (excluding wares and
             surgical instruments)
             made wholly or principally
E            of stainless steel."

       15. Subsequently another notification dated 23.11.1998
  was issued by Respondent No. 1 by exercising power under
  clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 3-A of the U.P. Act,
F whereby under Item 7, Sheets and Circles made wholly or
  principally of stainless steel and all remaining articles (excluding
  wares and surgical instruments) made wholly or principally of
  stainless steel were taxable @ 15% and steel wires were
  sought to be taxed @ 15% presuming to be an article made
G of stainless steel.

         The relevant part of the said notification is extracted herein
     below:


H
       BANSAL WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. v.             425
      STATE OF U.P. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
"S.No. Description of goods         Point of tax Rate of tax       A
                                                 percentage

{i)       Sheets and circles made Mor I            15%
          wholly or principally of
          stainless steel.                                         B
{ii)      All remain articles       Mor I          15%
          {excluding wares and
          surgical instruments made
          wholly or principally of
          stainless steel."                                        c
      16. Later, on 15.01.2000, Respondent No. 1 issued a
notification superseding the notifications dated 26.10.1991 and
23.11.1998 respectively, and Item No. 8 of the said notification
provided for levy of tax@ 15% on sheets and circles made           D
wholly or principally of stainless steel and also all· remaining
articles excluding ware and surgical instruments made wholly
or principally of stainless steel @ 15 %.

 The relevant part of the said notification is extracted herein
~~                                                                 E
"S.No. Description of goods          Point of tax Rate of tax
                                                  percentage

8.                                                                 F
{i)       Sheets and circles made M or I          15%
          wholly or principally of
          stainless steel.

(ii)      All remain articles        M or I        15%             G
          (excluding wares and
          surgical instruments) made
          wholly or principally of
          stainless steel."
                                                                   HI
     426       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 7 S.C.R.

A          17. Section 14 (iv) of the Central Act is the relevant
    . provision in the present appeals and we therefore extract the
      relevant portion of Section 14 (iv) of the Central Act and the
      same is as under: -

B          "14. Certain goods to be of special importance in inter-
           state trade or commerce. - It is hereby declared that the
           following goods are of special importance in inter-State
           trade or commerce, -


c
           (iv) iron and steel; that is to say, -

           (i) pig iron and caste iron including ingot moulds, bottom,
           plates, iron scrap, caste iron scrap, runner scrap and iron
           skull scrap;
D
           (ii) steel semis (ingots, slabs, blooms and billets of all
           qualities, shapes and sizes);

           (iii) skull bars, tin bars, sheet bars, hoe-bars and sleeper
E          bars;

           (iv) steel bars (rounds, rods, squares, flats, octagons and
           hexagons, plain and ribbed or twisted, in coil form as well
           as straight lengths);

F          (v) Steel structurals (angels, joists, channels, tees, sheet
           piling sections, Z sections or any other rolled sections);

           (vi) sheets, hoops, stripe and skelp, both black and
           galvanized, hot and cold rolled, plain and corrugated, in all
           qualities, in straight lengths and in coil form, as rolled and
G
           in riveted condition;

           (vii) plates both plain and chequered in all qualities;

           (viii) discs, rings, forgings, and steel castings;
H
  BANSAL WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. v.                     427
 STATE OF U.P. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
    (ix) tool, alloy and special steels of any of the above           A
    categories;

    (x) steel melting scrap in all forms including steel skull,
    turnings and borings;

    (xi) steel tubes, both welded and seamless, of all                B
    diameters and lengths, including tube fittings;

    (xii) tin-plates, both hot dipped and electrolytic and tin free
    plates;
                                                                      c
    (xiii) fish plates bars, beaming plate barn, crossing sleeper
    bars, fish plates, bearing plates, crossing sleepers and
    pressed steel sleepers, railsheavy and light crane rails;

    (xiv) wheels, tyres, axles and wheel sets;
                                                                      D
    (xv) wire rods and wires-rolled, drawn, galvanized,
    aluminized, tinned or coated such as by copper;

    (xvi) defectives, rejects, cuttings or end pieces of any of
    the above categories."
                                                                      E
    18. Section 15 of the Central Act is also a relevant
provision and the same is extracted hereunder :-

    "15. Restrictions and conditions in regard to tax on sale
    or purchase of declared goods within a State - Every              F
    sales tax law of a State shall, insofar as it imposes or
    authorises the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase
    of declared goods, be subject to the following restrictions
    and conditions, namely:-

    (a) the tax payable under that law in respect of any sale or      G
    purchase of such goods inside the State shall not exceed
    four per cent, of the sale or purchase price thereof,;


                                                                      H
    428      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 7 S.C.R.


A         19. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued a
    circular on 25.11.2005 to the Joint Commissioner Trade Tax,
    Ghaziabad directing that sale of stainless steel pipe, tubes,
    sheets shall not be taxable ·as declared goods under Section
    14 (iv) of the Central Act since stainless steel is an alloy which
9   consists of nickel etc. In view of the said circular the
    Commissioner issued direction to the authorities under him for
    proceeding under Sections 21 and 10(b) of the U.P. Act for
    initiating the re-assessment proceedings for different years.

        20. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
C submitted before us that the "stainless steel wire" is one of the
  species of "Iron and Steel" and therefore would fall within the
  aforesaid "declared commodity" and consequently rate of tax
  that is leviable on the goods of the appellant is 4% as originally
  assessed by the Department itself.
D
       21. He also submitted that the expression "Iron and Steel"
  mentioned in clause (iv) of Section 14 of the Central Act is a
  genus and "stainless steel wire" being a form of "Iron and Steel"
  is a specie thereof and therefore such "stainless steel wire"
E which the appellant produces would come within the expression
  of entry no. (xv) stating words "wire rods and wires-rolled,
  drawn, galvanized, aluminized, tinned or coated such as by
  copper" of any kind of "Iron and Steel" referring to the main
  expression of clause (iv) and that the Department had
F committed an error of law in restricting the expression of
  "stainless steel wire" through entry no. (ix), namely, "tools, alloy
  and special steels of any of the above categories".

        22. He also submitted that the Government of India in its
  Reference No. F No. 24120176 ST Department of Revenue and
G Banking dated 17.11.1976 has clarified that stainless steel is
  a type of alloy steel and is, therefore, covered within the
  definition of the term "iron and steel" for the purposes of entry
  no. (ix) of Section 14(iv) of the Central Act. He further submitted
  that once the Central Government has taken a stand, it is not
H open to the authorities of the State Government to take a
   BANSAL WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. v.  429
  STATE OF U.P. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
different view. He has also referred to the object and reason          A
for the amendment which is referred at page 1338 of
Chaturvedi's Cen~ral Sales Tax Act, 1956 Vol. I.

     23. The aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing
for the appellants were however refuted by the learned counsel         8
appearing for the respondent who relied upon the expression
"that is to say" as used in clause (iv} of Section 14 of the Central
Act to contend that the word 'user' makes the expression "Iron
and Steel" exhaustive and restrictive and not an expansive or
extensive.
                                                                       c
     24. He also referred to the expression "of any of the above
categories" occurring in entry no. (ix} of clause (iv} of Section
14 of the Central Act contending inter a/ia that the said
expression plays an instrumental role in determining the scope
and ambit of the aforesaid item. Relying on the same, he               D
submitted that any product of stainless steel is confined within
entry nos. (i} to (ix} of clause (iv) of Section 14 of the Central
Act and it cannot be given a wider meaning to include "stainless
steel wire" in entry No. (xv) of clause (iv} of Section 14 of the
Central Act. He specifically relied upon the decision of this          E
Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Mis. Pyare Lal Mehrotra,
reported in (1976) 1 sec 834.

    25. In the light of aforesaid submissions made by the
counsel appearing for.the parties, we proceed to answer the
issue which arises for our consideration by recording our              F
reasons therefor.

     26. In the aforesaid decision in Pyare Lal Mehrotra (supra)
the very word "that is to say", as per Section 14 of the Central
Act was considered and it was held that originally expression          G
"that is to say" is employed to make clear and fix the meaning
of what is to be explained or defined and that such words are
not used, as a rule, to amplify a meaning while removing a
possible doubt for which purpose the word "includes" is
generally employed. In the context of Section 14 of the Central        H
    430      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2011] 7 S.C.R.


A Act, this Court in the said decision held that the expression "that
  is to say" is used in Section 14 apparently to mean to
  exhaustively enumerate the kinds of goods in a given list. It was
  also held in the said decision that the purpose of an
  enumeration in a statute dealing with sales tax at a single point
B in a series of sales would, very naturally, be to indicate the types
  of goods each of which would constitute a separate class for
  a series of sales. In paragraph 15 of the said Judgment, this
  Court observed as under:

          "15. It appears to us that the position has been simplified
c         by the amendment of the law, as indicated above, so that
          each of the categories falling under "iron and steel"
          constitutes a new species of commercial commodity more
          clearly now. It follows that when one commercial commodity
          is transformed into another, it becomes a separate
D         commodity for purposes of sales tax."

        27. Therefore, in view of the position settled by this Court,
  it is clearly established that so far the items as mentioned in 1
  clause (iv) of Section 14 of the Central Act is concerned, each I
E of the categories falling under "iron and steel" constitutes a new
  species and each one of them is separate commodity for the
  purposes of sales tax.

       28. The expression "of any of the above categories"
F appearing in entry Nos. (ix) and (xvi) of clause (iv) of Section
  14 of the Central Act would indicate that they would each be
  items referred in the preceding items. Therefore, even the
  expression "of any of the above categories" in entry No. (ix) of
  clause (iv) would only relate to steel and alloy produced for any
  of the materials mentioned in item nos. (i) to (viii). Thus
G "stainless steel wire" produced by the appellant cannot be read
  into item no. (xv) which reads as "wire rods and wires-rolled,
  drawn, galvanized, aluminized, tinned or coated such as by
  copper".

H
  BANSAL WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. v.                     431
 STATE OF U.P. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
     29. This Court in the case of Pyare Lal Mehrotra (supra),         A
in paragraph 5, observed as under:-

     "5. It will be seen that "iron and steel" is now divided into
     16 categories which clearly embrace widely different
     commercial commodities, from mere scrap iron and                  8
     leftovers of processes of manufacturing to "wires" and
     "wheels, tyres, axles, and wheel sets". Some of the
     enumerated items like "melting scrap" or "tool alloys" and
     "special steels" could serve as raw material out of which
     other goods are made and others are definitely varieties          C
     of manufactured goods. If the subsequent amendment only
     clarifies the original intentions of Parliament, it would·
   · appear that Heading (iv) in Section 14, as originally
     worded, was also meant to enumerate separately taxable
     goods and not just to illustrate what is just one taxable
     substance: "iron and steel". The reason given, in the             D
     Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1972 Act, for an
     elucidation of the "definition" of iron and steel, was that the
     "definition" had led to varying interpretations by assessing
     authorities and the courts so that a comprehensive list of
     specified declared iron and steel goods would remove              E
     ambiguity. The Select Committee, which recommended
     the amendment, called each specified category "a item no."
     falling under "iron and steel". Apparently, the intention was
     to consider each "item no." as a separate taxable
     commodity for purpose of sales tax. Perhaps some items            F
     could overlap, but no difficulty arises in cases before us
     due to this feature. As we have pointed out, the statement
     of reasons for amendment spoke of Section 14(iv) as a
      '"definition" of "iron and steel". A definition is expected to
      be exhaustive. Its very terms may, however, show that it is      G
     not meant to be exhaustive. For example, a purported
     definition may say that the term sought to be defined
     "includes" what it specifies, but, in that case, the definition
     itself is not complete."
                                                                       H
    432         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 7 S.C.R.


A      30. It is thus clear, that if the object of newly substituted
  clause (iv) of Section 14 of the Central Act was to make iron
  and steel taxable as one substance, the item could have been
  "Goods of iron and steel" or, to be more clear, "Iron and steel
  irrespective of change of form or shape or character of goods
B made out of them". The more natural meaning, therefore is that
  each item specified in Section 14(iv} forms a separate species
  for each series of sales. When one commercial commodity is,
  by manufacturing process etc., transformed into another, it
  becomes a separate commodity for sales tax purposes. If iron
C bars were drawn· into "wire", such wire shall be a different
  taxable commodity. ·

       31. Parliament can restrict powers of State Government
  to tax "declared goods". Section 2(c) of the Central Act defines
  "declared goods" as those declared under Section 14 of
D Central Act as 'goods of special importance in Inter State Trade
  or Commerce. Section 14 of the Central Act gives a list of such
  goods and Section 15 specifies restrictions on power of States
  to tax such goods.

E        32. This Court in the case of Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills
    Assn. vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC
    413, observed as under:-

          16 ....... "that is to say" assigned in Stroud's Judicial
          Dictionary (Fourth Edn.) Vol. 5 at page 2753 to the
F         following effect:

          "That is to say.- (1) 'That is to say' is the commencement
          of an ancillary clause which explains the meaning of the
          principal clause. It has the following properties: (1) it must
G         not be contrary to the principal clause; (2) it must neither
          increase nor diminish it; (3) but where the principal clause
          is general in terms it may restrict it: .... ."

          17................. .
H         "The quotation, given above, from Stroud's Judicial
  BANSAL WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANR. v.                       433
 STATE OF U.P. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
    Dictionary shows that, ordinarily, the expression, 'that is         A
    to say' is employed to make clear and fix the meaning of
    what is to be explained or defined. Such words are not
    used, as a rule, to amplify a meaning while removing a
    possible doubt for which purpose the word 'includes' is
    generally employed ... but, in the context of single point          B
    sales tax, subject to special conditions when imposed on
    separate categories of specified goods, the expression
    was apparently meant to exhaustively enumerate the kinds
    of goods in a given list. The purpose of an enumeration in
    a statute dealing with sales tax at a single point in a series      c
     of sales would, very naturally, be to indicate the types of
    goods each of which would constitute a separate class for
    a series of sales. Otherwise, the listing itself loses all
    meaning and would be without any purpose behind it."

     33. It is thus clear, that the language used in entry no. (ix}     D
is plain and unambiguous and that the items which are
mentioned there are "tools, alloy and special steel". By using
the words "of any of the above categories" in entry Nos. (ix}
would refer to entries (i} to (viii} and it cannot and does not refer
to entry no (xv}. However, entry (xvi} of Clause (iv} would be          E
included in entry (xvi} particularly within the expression now
therein any of the aforesaid categories. Therefore, the specific
entry "tool, alloy and special steel" being not applicable to entry
(xv}, the contention of the counsel for the appellant has to be
rejected. It is, therefore, held that the stainless steel wire is not   F
covered within entry (ix} of clause (iv} of Section 14 of Central
Sales Tax Act.

     34. It is a settled principle of law that the words used in
the section, rule or notification should not be rendered G
redundant and should be given effect to. It is also one of the
cardinal principles of interpretation of any statue that some
meaning must be given to the words used in the section.
Expression "Wire rods and wires" which is mentioned in item ·
no. (xv) would not and cannot cover the expression "tools, alloy H
    434      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2011] 7 S.C.R.


A   and special steels" of entry no. (ix) nor it would refer to the
    expression "Iron and Steel" as each item used in entry nos. (ix)
    and (xv) are independent items not depending on each other
    at all as has been held in the case of Pyare Lal Mehrotra
    (supra).
B
        35. In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, we find support
  from the decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Hansoli
  Devi reported in (2002) 7 SCC 273 wherein this Court held that
  it is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute that when
C the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, the court
  must give effect to the words used in the statute.

       36. Besides, in a taxing Act one has to look merely at what
  is clearly said and there is no room for any intendment. In a
  taxing statute nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied,
D one can only look fairly at the language used.

       37. Therefore, the findings and the decision arrived at by
  the High Court that stainless steel wire is not covered under
  the entry of "tools, alloys and special steels" in entry no. (ix) and,
E therefore, does not fall under "Iron and Steel" as defined under
  Section 14(iv) of the Central Act have to be upheld. Hence, the
  said commodity cannot be treated as a declared commodity
  under Section 14 of the Central Act and provision of Section
  15 of the Central Act does not apply to the facts of the present
F appeals.

         38. In our considered opinion, the findings arrived at by the
    High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. Consequently, we
    find no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed
    without any order as to costs.
G
    8.8.B.                                      Appeals dismissed.