Kamleshwar Nath - (1.) RESPONDENT Jaswant Singh imported 103 quintals of iron pipe into the Mahapalika of Hardoi on 18-12-1979 and. did not pay octroi thereon on the basis that it was meant for agricultural purposes. If octroi was payable the amount would have been Rs. 618/-. On 15-1-80 the Municipal Board of Hardoi lodged a complaint under Section 154/155 of the U. P. Municipalities Act for the prosecution of respondent Jaswant Singh on the ground that he had made an evasion of the due octroi. The defence was that the pipe in question was used for tube wells.
(2.) THE trial court held that the pipe in question was used for agricultural purposes and, therefore, was exempt from octroi under Exemption Item no. 5 which otherwise would have been liable to octroi under Item no. 110 of the relevant Schedule. He, therefore, acquitted the respondent. This appeal, against acquittal, las been filed on the ground that the iron pipes in question could not be considered to be part of agri- cultural machines and, therefore, the exemption in question did not apply to it. The relevant portion of Item No. 110 of the Schedule, under which iron pipes are liable for octroi, is as follows "Lohe ka kul saman pipe fitting ka saman." Exemption Item no. 5 runs as follows :- "Krishi sambandi machine mai tractor wa unka saman." The finding of fact, recorded by the trial court, is that the pipe in question was used for drawing water by being fitted to tube wells. PW 1 Ram Bhajan stated that he did not know whether the pipe in question was or was not used in tube wells. He, however, admitted that he had seen borings for tube well and that pipes of the kind in question were used in boring for drawing water. The defence evidence was. that the pipe in question was used in tube wells for drawing water. There can be no doubt, therefore, that on being fitted to tube wells, or for the matter of that in machines meant for drawing water, the pipe in question would have been used for agricultural purposes.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant says that the statement of use for tube well is not necessarily a statement of use for agricultural purposes. There is no substance in this contention. In the first place, none of the parties proceeded on that basis in the trial court. In the second place, the common use of tube well is irrigation. The main point urged is that iron pipe in question is neither machinery nor part of machinery and, therefore, does not fall within Exemption Item no. 5. The contention does not seem to be correct. Both the Taxing Item no. 110 and the Exemption Item no. 5 use the word 'Saman'. Expression 'Saman' cannot be confined to parts or spajre parts, it is much wider and must mean, goods. It will be seen that in Taxing Item no. 110 the expression "Lohe ka kul saman" cannot mean all the spare parts of iron, it can only mean all the goods of iron. Similarly, in Exemption Item no. 5 the expression 'Saman' must mean goods concerning agricultural machines including tractors, it cannot be confined to spare parts of agricultural machines or tractor. This seems to be the basic error in the point of view of the Municipal Board, Hardoi. Indeed, in ground no. 2 of the Memorandum of Appeal, it has been stated that the relevant rules of the Municipal Board Hardoi offer exemption to "spare parts.";