ORDER MUDHOLKAR, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Section 24(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, for failing to obtain a certificate of registration as required by Section 8(1) of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40. The facts, which are not disputed, are as follows :- The applicant, who is a dealer, imported goods worth Rs. 784 from outside the State in the year in question, but the total turnover of his business during the year was Rs. 13,000. According to the prosecution as the turnover was in excess of Rs. 5,000 he was liable to pay tax under Section 4 of the Act, because Rule 18 of the rules framed under the Act specified that amount as the "taxable quantum" in respect of a dealer who was an importer of goods. Thus, according to them the applicant was bound under Section 8(1) of the Act to obtain a certificate of registration. The applicant contests his liability and says that upon a proper interpretation of Rule 18 framed under the Act, he would not be liable unless it is shown that the value of the goods imported was Rs. 5,000 and above. The provision in the Act which creates liability to pay tax is Section 4. Broadly speaking, under that section a person is liable to pay tax if his turnover for the preceding year exceeded the taxable quantum. The word "turnover," according to the definition contained in Section 2(j), means the aggregate of the sales prices received and receivable in a particular year. The expression "taxable quantum" has also been defined in the Act. Its definition reads thus :- "2 (i) 'taxable quantum' means :- (a) in relation to any dealer who himself manufactures or produces any goods for purposes of sale by himself, five thousand rupees; or (b) in relation to dealers not falling within clause (a), such sum or sums as may be prescribed;" This definition must be read along with Rule 18, which is in the following terms :- "The taxable quantum in relation to dealers not falling within sub-clause (a) of clause (i) of Section 2 shall be Rs. 5,000 for importers of goods and Rs. 5,000 for importers of goods and Rs. 25,000 for other dealers." The expression "importer of goods" is defined thus in Rule 2(k) of the Sales Tax Rules :- "'Importer of goods' means a dealer who brings or causes to be brought into the province any goods from outside the province for the purpose of sale." From this it would follow that a dealer who imports goods even of a value below Rs. 5,000 will be regarded as an importer of goods for the purpose of Rule 18. The taxable quantum for such a dealer would be Rs. 5,000. Reading Section 4 of the Act in the light of the definition of the expression "taxable quantum" and 'importer of goods" the position would appear to be that when the sales made by an importer of goods exceed Rs. 5,000 in any year he is rendered liable to pay tax. The question is whether the sales contemplated (i.e., of the value of Rs. 5,000 or over) are those of imported goods alone or whether they can be of goods locally obtained or partly of imported goods and partly goods otherwise obtained. Neither Section 4 of the Act nor the definition contained in Section 2 provides a satisfactory answer to this question. If Section 4 is interpreted according to its plain language it would be possible to say that once "taxable quantum" for a dealer is determined in pursuance of the definition, the question whether the goods sold comprise solely of the particular kind of goods (i.e., manufactured, produced or imported) does not arise and that all that one has to look to is whether the total sales exceed Rs. 5,000. If such an interpretation is placed on the relevant provisions curious results follow. I would illustrate how : Say a person imports goods and sells only the goods imported by him. He would not be liable to pay any tax so long as his sales do not exceed Rs. 5,000. Nor again would a person be liable to pay tax who sells only goods locally obtained so long as their value does not exceed Rs. 25,000. If, however, a person sells some goods which are locally obtained and some which are imported, the moment the total sales exceed Rs. 5,000. Nor again would a person be liable to pay tax who sells only goods locally obtained so long as their value does not exceed Rs. 25,000. If, however, a person sells some goods which are locally obtained and some which are imported, the moment the total sales exceed Rs. 5,000 he becomes liable to pay tax even though the actual value of the imported goods sold by him is, say, only as anna. Under Section 5 of the Act the tax is assessed on the actual sales, less certain deductions allowed under the Act. Goods, locally obtained, though of Rs. 5,000 in value sold during a year, are not assessable to tax. But upon a literal interpretation of Section 4 no sooner than an imported article, even of the value of only one anna, is sold during the year, besides these goods, the whole of it is rendered liable to tax. That is so even though the sale of the imported article alone during the year is also free from being assessed to tax. This is, if I may say so, an absurd result and could not have been intended by the legislature. If, however, the word 'sales' occurring in Section 4 is given a restricted meaning the absurdity can be avoided. It is one of the canons of interpretation that when too literal an adherence to the words of a statute leads to absurdity it is open to a Court to so interpret the statute as will obviate an absurd result. In such a case it is also open to the Court to give a restricted meaning to the words used in a statutory provision so as to give it a reasonable effect. The question is whether this course should be adopted in the present case. The learned Government Pleader states that the department has been interpreting the provisions of Section 4 literally, and if this Court were to hold that that is not the correct interpretation several complications as well as loss of revenue would result. These are, of course, not grounds on which a Court would refrain from adopting a construction of a statutory provision which appears to it to be appropriate. But, in my opinion, these circumstances enhance the importance of the point involved. These are, of course, not grounds on which a Court would refrain from adopting a construction of a statutory provision which appears to it to be appropriate. But, in my opinion, these circumstances enhance the importance of the point involved. I feel that the decision of the point either way is not free from difficulty, and as the point is also of considerable importance, I refer the proceedings under Rule 9(1) contained in Chapter 1, High Court Rules, to the Honourable the chief Justice with a recommendation that it be placed before a Bench of two Judges. Order of the Division Bench The applicant Ayodhyaprasad was prosecuted under Section 24(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Durg, on the allegation that he had carried on business as a dealer without a registration certificate as required by Section 8 of the Act, and the Rules framed under Section 28 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, hereafter referred to as the rules in this order, while being liable to pay tax. The material facts are these. The applicant is a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. He imported goods for sale from outside the State during the period between 25th October, 1946, and 12th November, 1947, worth Rs. 784. The turnover of his business during this period was Rs. 13,000. The applicant admitted the commission of offence under Section 24(1)(a) on 8th June, 1949, when particulars of the offence were explained to him. The trial Court held him guilty of the offence and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 40. The applicant applied to the Additional District Magistrate to revise the judgment of the trial Court. One of the contentions raised by him was that the facts did not constitute an offence for which he was convicted as he was not liable to pay tax. The Additional District Magistrate upheld the judgment of the trial Court. Thereupon the applicant applied in revision to this Court. The revision was heard by Mudholkar, J., who in view of the importance of the question involved in the case desired that it should be heard by a Bench of two Judges. The case is accordingly placed before us. The Additional District Magistrate upheld the judgment of the trial Court. Thereupon the applicant applied in revision to this Court. The revision was heard by Mudholkar, J., who in view of the importance of the question involved in the case desired that it should be heard by a Bench of two Judges. The case is accordingly placed before us. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant is an importer of goods within the meaning of Rule 2(k) which says that "importer of goods" means a dealer who brings or causes to be brought into the province any goods from outside the province for the purpose of sale. The taxable quantum in relation to an importer of goods is specified in Rule 18 and is Rs. 5,000. The turnover of the applicant was Rs. 13,000 and exceeded the taxable quantum of Rs. 5,000. He was therefore liable to pay tax under Section 4 of the Act. The trial Court held that "being importer of goods, the taxable quantum in his case was Rs. 5,000 as laid down under Section 2(b) of the Sales Tax Act read with Rule 18, Sales Tax Rules, 1947, and as such he should have applied and registered himself as a dealer." The Additional District Magistrate in rejecting the contention of the applicant of his non-liability to pay tax as the value of imported goods was less than Rs. 5,000 observed as follows :- "It is clear from the definition of taxable quantum that it is fixed with respect to various classes of dealers, like manufacturers, producers, importers of goods etc. Once it is found that a dealer falls in a particular category, the taxable quantum for him is defined. The liability for sales tax in case of a dealer, arises under Section 4(1) ibid by reason of his turnover [defined in Section 2(j) ibid] of taxable goods, in the year under assessment, exceeding his taxable quantum. Thus for the purposes of turnover it is immaterial that he imports goods to the sum of Rs. 5,000. All that matters is that he has dealt in taxable goods in the year under assessment. The turnover refers to his entire business for the year under assessment. Thus for the purposes of turnover it is immaterial that he imports goods to the sum of Rs. 5,000. All that matters is that he has dealt in taxable goods in the year under assessment. The turnover refers to his entire business for the year under assessment. This appears to me to be the plain construction of the definitions and rules in question as it is consistent with the scheme of the Act and as also its spirit." The contention put forward before us by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that Rule 18 has been wrongly interpreted by the two Courts. The applicant is not liable to pay tax as the sale price of imported goods was less than Rs. 5,000 and the turnover did not exceed the amount of Rs. 25,000, fixed under Rule 18. The learned Additional Government Pleader has supported the interpretation of the Additional District Magistrate. The decision in this case turns on the question of liability of the applicant to pay tax under the Act. If he is liable to pay tax, his conviction is proper. If not, he was not bound to get himself registered under Section 8, and his conviction is illegal. We have first to consider the provision relating to incidence of taxation. The material portion of Section 4(1) of the Act says :- "Every dealer whose turnover during the year preceding the commencement of this Act exceeded the taxable quantum shall be liable to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this Act on all sales effected after the commencement of this Act." Taxable quantum as defined in Section 2(i) means :- "(a) in relation to any dealer who himself manufactures or produces any goods for purposes of sale by himself, five thousand rupees; or (b) in relation to dealers not falling within clause (a), such sum or sums as may be prescribed." The limit in case of an importer of goods and other dealers is prescribed by Rule 18 which is as follows :- "The taxable quantum in relation to dealers not falling within sub-clause (a) of clause (i) of Section 2 shall be Rs. 5,000 for importers of goods and Rs. 5,000 for importers of goods and Rs. 25,000 for other dealers." We may here reproduce the definition of turnover :- "'Turnover' means the aggregate of the amounts of sale prices, and parts of sale prices received or receivable by a dealer in respect of the sale or supply of goods or in respect of the sale or supply of goods in the carrying out of any contract, effected or made during the prescribed period." We have to construe the words "five thousand rupees" specified in Section 2(i) and Rule 18. One of the rules of construction is that words must be construed with reference to the context. The words cannot be effectively construed if they are divorced from the context. The words "five thousand rupees" in Section 2(i)(a), in our opinion, refer to the turnover of goods manufactured or produced by a dealer for purposes of sale by himself. It is only when the sale price of goods manufactured or produced by a dealer exceeds Rs. 5,000 that he becomes liable to pay tax under Section 4(1) of the Act. The words do not refer to the sale price of goods not manufactured or produced by a dealer. A dealer who himself manufactures or produces any goods for sale is not liable if the sale price of goods manufactured or produced by him is less than Rs. 5,000; nor does he become liable if the turnover comprising the sale price of goods manufactured or produced by him and of other goods locally obtained exceeds Rs. 5,000 but does not exceed Rs. 25,000. The same interpretation applies to Rule 18. The words "five thousand" refer to the turnover of imported goods and not to goods obtained locally. It is only when the sale price of goods imported exceeds Rs. 5,000 that an importer of goods becomes liable under Section 4(1) of the Act to pay tax. So long as the sale price of imported goods does not exceed Rs. 5,000, an importer is not liable to pay tax under Section 4 of the Act. There is no liability by an importer to pay tax if the sale price of imported goods is less than Rs. 5,000 and the turnover does not exceed Rs. 25,000. The effect of Section 2(i) and Rule 18 is to create three classes of dealers for purposes of taxation. There is no liability by an importer to pay tax if the sale price of imported goods is less than Rs. 5,000 and the turnover does not exceed Rs. 25,000. The effect of Section 2(i) and Rule 18 is to create three classes of dealers for purposes of taxation. The first class consists of persons who deal mainly in the sale of goods manufactured or produced by them. The turnover for this class is fixed at Rs. 5,000. The second class consists of persons who deal mainly in the sale of imported goods and the turnover of the imported goods is fixed at Rs. 5,000. The last class consists of persons whose turnover of goods manufactured or produced by themselves for sale or whose turnover of imported goods does not exceed Rs. 5,000. The applicant imported goods of the value of Rs. 784 only. He cannot therefore be said to be a dealer whose main business was sale of imported goods. He really comes under the third category of dealers and the taxable quantum for him is Rs. 25,000 fixed by Rule 18. The contention of the prosecution that a dealer whose turnover of imported goods even though of a rupee will be liable to pay tax if the total turnover is in excess of Rs. 5,000 cannot be accepted. It is not based on a reasonable interpretation of Section 2(i) and Rule 18. There is no reason why a person whose turnover of imported goods is negligible or does not exceed Rs. 5,000 should be liable to pay tax so long as the total turnover does not exceed Rs. 25,000. It is a well established rule that the subject is not to be taxed without clear words for that purpose. The Act is a fiscal enactment and has therefore to be construed strictly and any ambiguity or doubt arising out of its interpretation has to be resolved in favour of the subject. We may refer to the observations of the Judicial Committee in Oriental Bank v. Wright ([1880] 5 App. Cas. The Act is a fiscal enactment and has therefore to be construed strictly and any ambiguity or doubt arising out of its interpretation has to be resolved in favour of the subject. We may refer to the observations of the Judicial Committee in Oriental Bank v. Wright ([1880] 5 App. Cas. 842.) : "If a statute professes to impose a charge the rule is that the intention to impose a charge upon a subject must be shown by clear and unambiguous language." We may also refer to the remarks of Collins, M.R., in Attorney-General v. Selborne ([1902] 1 K.B. 388 at p. 396.) where he cites a passage of Lord Cairns in Partington v. Attorney-General ([1869] L.R. 4 H.L. 100 at p. 122.) :- "I am not at all sure that, in a case of this kind - a fiscal case - form is not amply sufficient; because, as I understand the principle of all fiscal legislation, it is this : If the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Crown, seeking to recover the tax cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law the case might otherwise appear to be. In other words, if there be admissible, in any statute, what is called an equitable construction, certainly such a construction is not admissible in a taxing statute, where you can simply adhere to the words of the statute. Therefore the Crown fails if the case is not brought within the words of the statute, interpreted according to their natural meaning; and if there is a case which is not covered by the statute so interpreted that can only be cured by legislation, and not by an attempt to construe the statute benevolently in favour of the Crown." The interpretation of the learned Additional District Magistrate is not warranted by the scheme of the Act and the language of Rule 18. Such an interpretation leads to injustice and absurdity. In Mt. Hasinabai v. Shrikishandas ([1947] I.L.R. 1947 Nag. 402; A.I.R. 1948 Nag. Such an interpretation leads to injustice and absurdity. In Mt. Hasinabai v. Shrikishandas ([1947] I.L.R. 1947 Nag. 402; A.I.R. 1948 Nag. 60.), it was held that where one construction leads to absurdity and the other makes the statute logical, the latter construction is to be preferred as every effort should be made to make sense and not nonsense of legislation. The applicant, in our opinion, was not liable to pay tax. He did not contravene the provision of Section 8 of the Act and his conviction is illegal. We set aside the judgments of the two Courts and acquit the applicant. Fine, if paid, will be refunded. Accused acquitted.