TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (4) TMI 333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were agricultural machinery only if they were sold for the purpose of irrigating agricultural land and if they were sold for non-agricultural purposes, they were machinery or machines other than agricultural machinery as framed? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the electric motors were 'machineries and machines' within the meaning of the expression used in serial No. 31 of Notification No. 9134/F.T. dated 1st July, 1959, as amended? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the electric transformers were 'machineries and machines' within the meaning of the expression as used in serial No. 31 of Notification....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the privilege of exemption from the levy of the general sales tax. It is for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the pumping sets sold by the dealer were sold for the purposes of use as agricultural implements or otherwise, that a remand order has been passed by the Tribunal. We may straightway refer to a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Engineering Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1973] 31 STC 456 (All) [FB], where exactly a similar question arose as to whether pumping sets connected intimately with agricultural and commonly used and understood as agricultural implements, were covered under entry 38 of the schedule to the notification dated 1st April, 1960, issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Repelling th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs and the like where it was held that the use of the tractor could not be said to confine to agricultural purposes only. We, however, do not feel that the ratio of those cases, namely, Pashabhai Patel & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State [1964] 15 STC 32 (Born) and Agrawal Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh [1965] 16 STC 860 (MP), would have any application to the facts of this cass as, in our opinion, it is the common use and parlance in which an appliance is understood and used would decide its fate for application of the item of exemption. We would, therefore, reject the claim of exemption by the dealer and answer question No. (1) in favour of the department and against the dealer. 6.. No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ectric motors in question are fully covered within the purview of "machinery", particularly when item No. 31 mentions that the machinery could be worked either by electricity or steam or diesel or petrol. In view of this specific description in item No. 31, we feel no hesitation in answering this question in favour of the dealer and against the department. 7.. Now remains the question of transformers. The claim for exemption on transformers is also based upon the exemption provided under item No. 31. The learned Member and Chairman have differed on this question. In this connection we may mention that by a notification dated the 12th September, 1961, item No. 43 was added to the Schedule reading as "electric transformers manufactured in ....