JUDGMENT : K.B. Asthana, CJ. The Petitioner, M/s. A-One Engineers & Builders, Kanpur, carry on business in Kanpur, dealing in centrifugal pumps, diesel pumping sets, diesel oil engines and tube-well fittings, mainly used for agricultural purposes. According to the Petitioner, the pumping sets are sold to agriculturists for agriculture purposes. The agriculturists are granted loan by the State Government or by a Scheduled Bank. They are sold to such agriculturists who are recommended by the Governmental authorities. The case of the Petitioner is that the diesel engines, pumping sets, tube-well fittings etc. in which it is dealing are agriculture implements and accessories which are imported for agricultural purposes only and they being exempt from octroi under the Government Notification, the Nagar Mahapalika of Kanpur had no right or authority to levy and charge octroi on such goods. The, Petitioner has challenged the validity of such levy and charge by the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. The Petitioner has further raised a plea that the octroi so levied had not been legally and validity levied as required by law and on that ground also the levy is unauthorised. A Writ in the nature of mandamus is sought prohibiting the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur from levying and charging the octroi. 2. The Nagar Mahapalika has raised a contest on the ground that the levy or octori by it is legal and valid under the law applicable and all provisions of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalikaa Adhiniyams were complied with in levying the octroi. It has also been contended on behalf of the Nagar Mahapalika that the pumping sets, diesel engines sets and other materiala for tube-well imported and sold by the Petitioner are liable to charge under the Octroi Rules on the rates, prescribed as machinery and they are not exempt from octori under the notification of the Government as these pumping sets and diesel engines are not agricultural implements and accessories as they can be used and are used for the purposes other than agriculture. 3. We do not think for the purpose of deciding this petition we should examine the legal question raised as to the validity of the levy of octroi by the Nagar Mahapalika as this petition can be disposed of by resolving the question whether the articles in question are exempt from octroi under the relevant notification of the Government. 4. 3. We do not think for the purpose of deciding this petition we should examine the legal question raised as to the validity of the levy of octroi by the Nagar Mahapalika as this petition can be disposed of by resolving the question whether the articles in question are exempt from octroi under the relevant notification of the Government. 4. We assume for the purposes of this case that all the formalities required by law have been complied with in levying the octroi by the Nagar Mahapalika. The only question to be considered then is whether the articles in question fall within the exemption granted by the State Government. At the outset it may be observed that on behalf of the Petitioner it has been averted in the affidavit that the pumping sets, diesel engines, tube well fittings etc. are sold to agriculturists for agricultural purposes and they are imported for agricultural purposes only. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Nagar Mahapalika it has been averred that it is wrong to say that each and every oil engine is used for agricultural purposes only. In fact the main controversy seems to revolve round the levy of octroi on diesel engines. According to the Petitioner, these engines are a necessary ingredient of a pumping sets which lifts water for agricultural purposes and since, the whole supply of such sets fitted with engines is meant for agriculturist for use in agricultural operation only, it would be exempt from octroi. The Nagar Mahapalika took up the stand that every diesel oil engine would not necessarily, be an ingredient of pumping set for lifting water by the agriculturist and can be sold as a separate entity, it will not fall within the exemption clause. Reliance was also placed on a list issued by the Government in 1957 and published in Gazette explaining the items which were exempt as agricultural implements and on its basis it is the case of the Nagar Mahapalika that oil engines and pumping sets not having been included in the enumeration of agricultural implements clearly showed an intention on the part of the Government that their import was not exempt from octroi. We do not think the question of fact raised on the averments as to the actual use which the oil engines and pumping sets are put by the purchasers needs to be elaborately discussed inasmuch we believe the averments of the Petitioner that these implements and accessories thereof are imported by it for agricultural purposes only. There is sufficient material on record in support of this averment, which has not been satisfactorily controverted. 5. By a notification dated March 30, 1973, issued in exercise of powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 203 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, the Governor exempted at serial No. 15 in the list of articles exempted from octroi "agricultural implements and accessories thereof, which are imported for agriculture purposes only, excluding Pharsa and Tractors". Since the Petitioner imports the diesel engines and pumping sets together with accessories thereof for agricultural purpose only, the question remains whether diesel engines and pumping sets can be said to be agricultural implements. It cannot be denied that water for irrigating the fields by the farmers and agriculturists is a necessity and forms an important part of agricultural operations. Setting up of pumping sets driven by power for lifting water from wells and sub-soil are very common in modern method of agriculture. A pumping set can be worked manually or by power. The modern farmers and agriculturists prefer the use of power which can be generated by electric engine, or diesel engine or steam engine. Such engines, therefore, become an ingredient of the pumping operation and help in lifting large quantity of water from wells and sub-soils for irrigation more economically and in lesser time as compared to pumping and lifting of water by manual methods. By a notification dated 30-3-1957, a copy of which is annexure 25 to the counter affidavit, the Government amended some previous notification and added an Explanation appending a list of what deemed to be agriculture implements and machinery for the purpose of exemption from octroi by the Municipal Boards. At serial No. 1 tractors together with all their parts including trailers was included in the said list and at serial No. 37 was included water lifts of different types such as persian-wheels in the same list. We do not think this notification helps the case set up by the Nagar Mahapalika if at all it helps the Petitioner. At serial No. 1 tractors together with all their parts including trailers was included in the said list and at serial No. 37 was included water lifts of different types such as persian-wheels in the same list. We do not think this notification helps the case set up by the Nagar Mahapalika if at all it helps the Petitioner. From the notification of March 30, 1973 it would be seen that out of the agricultural implements and accessories tractor and pharsas have been excluded at serial No. 15. Pharsas and tractors thus would not be exempt but other agricultural implements and accessories would be exempt which are imported for agricultural purposes. It would be noted that water lifts of different types have not been excluded from item No. 15. A water pump is nothing but an implement which lifts water. So it can be said to be a water lifter. When water lifters of different types were deemed to be agricultural implements & machinery in 1957 by the Government itself and in 1973 the Government did not express an intention to exclude water lifts from the entry No. 15 as an agricultural implement exempted from octroi, it is trite to say that water lifts of different types are not agricultural implements or machinery. We need not dilate and expound on the point much further as we are bound by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Engineering Traders, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1973 ALJ 197 in which this Court had an occasion to decide whether pumping sets connected intimately with agriculture were agricultural implements for the purposes of levy of sales tax. The Full Bench observed in paragraph 10 of the reported case at page 200 as follows : There can be no manner of doubt that in recent times lift irrigation is being largely employed by farmers to irrigate their fields. Lift irrigation is mainly employed to lift water from wells, tanks, ponds, rivulets and streams and the main appliance used is a pumping set. The Government is laying more and more emphasis on this modern irrigational aid so that the farmer is less dependent on natural irrigation by rain. Only recently the Government announced the grant of Taqavi loans to farmers to enable them to purchase pumping sets to overcome the drought resulting from failure of the Mansoon. 6. The Government is laying more and more emphasis on this modern irrigational aid so that the farmer is less dependent on natural irrigation by rain. Only recently the Government announced the grant of Taqavi loans to farmers to enable them to purchase pumping sets to overcome the drought resulting from failure of the Mansoon. 6. Further in paragraph 11 of the report at page 201 the argument that pumping set has a variety of other uses, besides being used as a water lifting appliance for irrigation as the pump could be used for pumping water for industrial or drinking purposes was repelled by the Full Bench by the observation: It is argued that unless something is exclusively used for agricultural purpose, it cannot be termed an agricultural implement. This line of reasoning is not correct. There is hardly any appliance or equipment which is not capable of being put t more than one use. A simple appliance like a spade or a shovel can be cited to illustrate this point. No one can dispute that shovels and spades are agricultural implements but they are used quite extensively in building operations also. In order that an appliance may be an agricultural implement, the real test is not that it should be exclusively used of agricultural purposes but that it should be commonly so used and it should be intimately and directly connected with agricultural operations. 7. Here in the instant case, the diesel engines imported by the Petitioner a necessary ingredient of the pumping set for supplying to the agriculturists under the scheme of the Government, can legitimately be classed as agricultural implements or accessories thereof and there can be no doubt in our mind that it is exempted under the notification dated 30-3-1973. 8. The result is that this petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the Nagar Mahapalika, Knapur not to levy and charge the octroi duty from the Petitioner in respect of the diesel engines, oil engines and tube-well fittings imported by it for agricultural purposes. 9. The Petitioner will be entitled to its costs from the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur.