TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (4) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....seeds." The Tribunal took the view that tapioca thippi dust and the mixture of molasses with tapioca thippi dust are items of cattle feed and are therefore covered by the notification extracted above and consequently exempt from tax. It is this conclusion of the Tribunal that is challenged by the State in the present tax revision case. The contention of the State is that it is not every item of cattle feed that is covered by the notification and that the notification covers only the enumerated items of cattle feed mentioned therein. We are of the opinion that this contention of the State is correct. The word "namely" has been construed by a Bench of this Court with reference to item 13 of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-1 v. Arasan Fertilisers (P.) Ltd.[1978] 114 I.T.R. 802. In that case the point that had to be considered was whether bone-meal manufactured by the assessee-company was one of the articles or things specified in the list in the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. Item 13 of the Fifth Schedule reads as follows: "13 Fertilisers, namely, ammonium sulphate, ammonium sulphate nitrate (double salt), ammonium n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "mean" so and so, the definition is explanatory and prima facie restrictive. In the other, where the word defined is declared to "include" so and so, the definition is extensive.' To similar effect is a passage in Corpus Juris Secundum, volume LXIV, at page 1084, where it is stated that the term 'namely' is a term which imports interpretation, that is, indicates what is included in the previous term. Thus, when the legislature used the expression 'namely' after the word 'fertilisers', the meaning given to the word should be restricted to those that are enumerated. The legislature has used both the words 'namely' and 'including' in the same Fifth Schedule in items 13 and 18. Thus, the legislature clearly should have intended in using these different words in different entries to restrict or enlarge a general meaning and, therefore, we are not entitled to enlarge the meaning of the word 'fertiliser' on any consideration of common usage of the word 'fertiliser'." So also, with regard to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, different expressions have been used to indicate whether the expression is used in a restrictive sense or in all illustrative sense. There is the First Sch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l, 1959, and ending with the 31st March, 1962, the rate of tax payable under item 42 in the First Schedule to the said Act, at the point of first sale in the State, in respect of pottery articles, that is to say, articles made of baked clay and stoneware; and (2) exempts for the period commencing on the 1st April, 1959, and ending with the 31st March, 1962, the dealers in pottery articles, that is to say, in articles made of baked clay and stoneware, having total turnover of less than rupees ten thousand from the tax payable under the said Act." Here again we are drawing attention to the use of the words "that is to say" occurring in the notification, as against the words "such as" occurring in the notification referred to already. Another notification, G.O.P. No. 1946, Revenue, dated 28th June, 1965, states: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Madras Act 1 of 1959), the Governor of Madras hereby exempts with effect from 1st April, 1960, from the liability to tax under the said Act, sales of documentary films, visual materials like photograph slides, transparencies and visual communication novelties, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estrictive in the sense that the general expression which precedes the word "namely" is confined to the itemised expressions that follow the word "namely". Consequently the meaning of the word "namely" can only be restrictive and can be neither illustrative nor expansive. However, Mr. Natarajan, the learned counsel for the respondent, drew our attention to a decision of the Allahabad High Court as well as the structure of the notification itself. The decision of the Allahabad High Court relied on is Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bishram Tiwari[1971] 28 S.T.C. 485. In that case the item with which the court was concerned was: "Agricultural implements worked by human or animal power, namely, Khurpi (Hoe), Dibber, Spade, Hansia (Sickle), Garden knife, Axe, Gandasa, Chaffcutter, Shears, Secateurs, rake, shovel, ploughs and accessories thereof, water lifting leather buckets (pur and mhot) and accessories thereof and Rahat and Persian wheel and accessories thereof." The Allahabad High Court had to consider the scope of the expression "namely" occurring in the notification. The learned Judges observed: "The notification seeks to exempt agricultural implements worked by human and animal....