TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (7) TMI 316
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or 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 [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC); AIR 1957 SC 768. What has been held is that the term ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 rupee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cant 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 princip....