V.A. Mohta, J.
1. The following common question has been referred to this Court for determination under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (“the Act”) at the instance of the dealer in these two references :
“Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the chaffcutter is not an agricultural machinery and implement and, therefore, not covered by entry No. 12 of Schedule C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ?”
2. The basic factual background is this :
The dealer, M/s. J. Shersingh and Sons, Kamptee Road, Nagpur, is a manufacturer of power driven chaff-cutters. The sales tax authorities as well as the Tribunal held that the chaff-cutters are covered by the residuary entry No. 22 of Schedule E of the Act, and not by entry No. 12 of Schedule C as claimed by the dealer. The dealer contended that predominant use of chaff-cutters is in agricultural operations and therefore, they are “agricultural machinery and implements” under entry No. 12 of Schedule C which reads thus :
“Agricultural machinery and implements (other than implements specified in entry 1 in Schedule A) and parts of such machinery and implements.”
The dealer placed following material on record in support of its claim :
(i) Letters by the Deputy Director I/C Key Village, M.S. Pune and the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Umrer, to the dealer enquiring about availability of the chaff-cutters for being distributed to the cultivators at subsidised rates.
(ii) Communication of the Director of Industries and Central Stores Purchasing Officer registering the name of the dealer as an approved firm for the supply of agricultural implements like chaff-cutters.
(iii) Various sales of chaff-cutters by the dealer to the cultivators through the Block Development Officer at subsidised rates.
On behalf of the department, no material whatsoever was placed.
3. The Tribunal held as follows :
“But the question is for whom is the chaff-cutter, mainly designed or intended ? It appears to me that the main use of the chaff-cutter is to facilitate the preparation of fodder of the cattle efficiently and economically. If an agriculturist has a large number of bullocks which he uses in agricultural operations, it is possible that such an agriculturist would use this implement. In these days of mechanisation who would maintain a large number of bullocks when a tractor can do those operations better and in a shorter span of time ?”
The Tribunal did not dispute that the chaff-cutters can be used in agricultural operations by agriculturists but held that they are not mainly designed or intended for them and are intended and designed mainly for the use in “dairy farming” which is excluded from the following definition of the term “agriculture” under section 2(1) of the Act :
“‘Agriculture’, with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes horticulture, the raising of crops, grass or garden produce, and also grazing; but does not include dairy farming, poultry farming, stock breeding or the mere cutting of wood or grass or gathering of fruit.”
4. Perusal of the above definition will leave no manner of doubt that it is in consonance with the view the Supreme Court took about the undefined term “agriculture” in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy . What has been held is that the term in its popular sense is not confined only to the operation of cultivation on land, such as tilling and sowing but takes within its fold operations to be performed after the produce sprouts from the land and to make it useful for consumption and/or to make it a better marketable item. The Supreme Court, however, did not include activities like breeding and rearing livestock, dairy farming, poultry farming, etc., in that concept. Since the Act has been made two years after the pronouncement of that judgment, reasonable inference can be drawn that in formulating the definition of the term “agricultural” the legislature was guided by the ratio of that judgment. The competence of the legislature to give narrower or wider meaning to any term cannot be disputed, but no such exercise seems to have been undertaken in the Act.
5. Chaff-cutter is used to prepare fodder out of stems. Fodder is prepared for consumption by cattle of a cultivator as well as for sale in the market. A cultivator can have chaff-cutter even without having cattle. Thus, the assumption of the Tribunal that it is used only for consumption of produce in basically wrong. Aspect of sale is totally missed by the Tribunal and this has turned the direction of its approach. The second incorrect assumption is that with advent of tractors, agriculturists do not maintain a large number of bullocks. This assumption displays ignorance about rural life. Chaff-cutter is an essential implement of a cultivator, as will be clear from the unimpeachable material on record that the Government helps the cultivators to own chaff-cutters at subsidised rates. Several sales of chaff-cutters are actually made by the dealer to the cultivators through Block Development Officers and Panchayat Samitis. There is no warrant whatsoever for a conclusion that it is predominantly used by dairy owners.
6. In entry No. 12 of Schedule C, there is reference to entry No. 1 of Schedule A, which reads as follows :
“Such agricultural implements worked or operated exclusively by human or animal agency as may be specified from time to time by the State Government by notification in official gazette and parts of such implements which are sold at a price of not less than five rupees each.”
Schedule A refers to articles exempted from levy of sales tax. The Government has issued a Notification dated 11th June, 1973, under that entry No. 1 in which chaff-cutter is included at item No. 31. This also demonstrates that chaff-cutter is recognised even by the Government basically as an agricultural implement. In this connection it is contended on behalf of the department that (i) the notification cannot be relied upon for interpretation for the earlier period, (ii) it is issued by the Government and not by the legislature and hence is not decisive of the matter and (iii) implements not used predominantly for agriculture have been included merely to widen the benefit of exemption. These contentions do not impress us at all. Question is not of retrospectively of the notification but of acceptance of chaff-cutter as an agricultural implement. Notification may not be decisive but is certainly relevant. Notification could include only agricultural implements and could not have included implements which are not agricultural.
7. It may be mentioned that the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kapila Machinery Company (1961) MPLJ 1295, held chaff-cutter as an agricultural implement. It is true that under the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act the term “agriculture” has not been defined and it is on the basis of the popular meaning of the term that the decision is rendered, but in the background already noticed that facet makes no significant difference.
8. It appears that in the matter of this very dealer in respect of the subsequent assessment years the Tribunal held that chaff-cutters are covered by entry No. 12 of Schedule C and the department has not challenged the said order of the Tribunal.
9. It is contended on behalf of the department that the Tribunal’s finding that the chaff-cutter is not an agricultural implement but is a dairy implement, is a finding of fact which is binding on the High Court and hence the question raised has to be answered in the affirmative. We do not agree. That will be too hypertechnical a view of the question framed. The Tribunal has referred the question not because of peculiar facts involved in the case but because of the principle involved.
10. All that remains for consideration are the following three decisions to which our attention was drawn on behalf of the department :
(i) Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bombay Traders [1976] 38 STC 286 (Bom).
(ii) Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1987] 64 STC 420 (Bom).
(iii) Agricultural Implements Dealers Syndicate v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1970] 25 STC 79 (SC).
In our view, once of these cases have relevance to the controversy before us. First case merely lays down that High Court is bound by findings of facts and unless question is referred about those findings, being not supported by evidence, there is no jurisdiction to go into that. The second case lays down well-known principle that it is the predominant use of the article which is decisive of the matter and not its stray use. The third case decides that “mowers” in item No. 1 of Schedule I of section 10(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act does not include “chaff-cutter”.
11. Under the circumstances, we record the answer to the question in the negative. No order as to costs.
12. Reference answered in the negative.