- (1.) K. L. SHARMA, J. This is a revision under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") directed against the judgment and order dated July 19, 1988 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Dehradun Bench, Dehradun, in Second Appeal No. 304 of 1987 whereby the appeal was allowed and a relief of Rs. 12,844 in the disputed tax was granted to the assessee.
(2.) I have heard Sri R. D. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant, as well as Sri Bharatji Agrawal, learned counsel for the opposite party. The only question raised in this revision for determination is that whether automatic water level recorder and snow gauge and rain gauge automatic water level recorder are covered within the classification of "scientific instruments" for the purpose of tax at the rate of 3 per cent, or whether they are unclassified items liable to be taxed at the rate of 7 per cent. Mr. R. D. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel, has disputed the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the items in question are the scientific instruments which are included in the classification mentioned at entry No. 31 inserted by Notification No. ST-II-2957/x - 6 (17)-76 dated May 20, 1976, as amended by Notification No. ST-II-7040/x - 6 (17)-76 - U. P. Act-XV/48 - Order-77 dated September 30, 1977. He has submitted that these items in question are not being used by students and as such they cannot be treated as having been included in the classification referred to by the Notification No. ST-II-7040/x - 6 (17)-76 - U. P. Act-XV/48 - Order-77 dated September 30, 1977. I have considered this submission but find myself unable to agree with this views. The past history of this classification shows that there were limited items under this category which were generally usable by the students and as such the notification mentioned only those items which are used by the students. But in the subsequent notification the works "used by the students" have been omitted. Therefore, the intention of the Legislature is evident from this change that the classification mentioned by the amending notification has been widened so as to include the "scientific instruments" irrespective of the fact whether they are used by the students or scientists or any other person. Therefore, the limited scope of the classification cannot be adopted to deprive the assessee of the benefit of lower rate of tax for the items in question.
(3.) IT is a cardinal principle for interpretation of fiscal provision that in case two interpretations are possible, the interpretation which is more favourable or beneficial to the assessee should be accepted and the other one which is harmful or adverse to the assessee should be ignored. In the present case, if the items in question are treated as unclassified, though they do not appear apparently so, they will be liable to be taxed at higher rate 7 per cent. , whereas the classified items at serial No. 31 referred to above are liable to be taxed at the rate of 3 per cent. which is more beneficial to the assessee. The learned Tribunal has also considered this aspect carefully and I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal based on correct interpretation of law. In the alternative, Mr. R. D. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel, has contended that the items in question are classified under the category of "weight and measurements made of metal or alloy" and are liable to tax at the rate of 7 per cent. Mr. Bharatji Agrawal has raised objection to the submission pointing out that this plea was never taken by the department at any stage either before assessing authority or before the appellate authority and the department had take consistent stand that the items are unclassified. The objection raised by Mr. Agrawal is borne out form the record. I do not find such plea having been raised or considered by the assessing authority or the appellate authority. Therefore, this objection is upheld and the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel is hereby rejected.;