Judgment S. Sarwar Ali, A.C.J. In this writ application the petitioner prays for quashing of Annexures 3 to 7. These are notices directing payment of various sums of money, as mentioned in the respective notices, under the Cess Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The notices are for the years 1967-68 to 1971-72. The notices purport to be demand on the basis of section 6 of the Act, being the local cess leviable on the annual net profits of the petitioner railways. 2. The petitioner is a Company which carries on business, inter alia, of running a light railway. The Light Railway runs from Dehri-on-Sone to Tiura Pipradih, in the district of Rohtas. The railway line for the said Light Railway is laid over 67 kilometeres. The petitioner avers that this covers an area of 413-55 acres. The area in question is owned and/or used by the petitioner company as a lessee. The petitioner, it is claimed under a mistake of law, was filing returns showing net profits derived by the petitioner from its railway business as a whole. This mistake, it is averred, was realised in July, 1974 on proper legal advice having been received. On the basis of the returns, it appears, notices under section 80 of the Act was served showing the assessed amount of cess. It is these demands which are under challenge. 3. It may be stated that an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the District Board of Shahabad, now known as District Board of Bhojpur. This agreement was based on an award dated 22.2.1953, according to which a consolidated sum of Rs.10,000/- per year was to be paid. The relevant sections in the context of the main submissions made are sections 5 and 6. Section 5 reads thus:- "5 All immovable property to be liable to a local cess from and after the commencement of this Act, in any district or part of a district, all immovable property situate therein except as otherwise in section 2 provided, shall be liable to the payment of a local cess." Section 6 so far as relevant is as follows :- "Cess how to be assessed. The local cess shall be assessed on the annual value of lands and, until prevision to the contrary is made by the Parliament on the annual net profits from, mines and quarries, other than notified mines, and from tramways, railways and other immovable property ascertained respectively as in this Act prescribed." The contention of Sri Lal Narain Sinha, who appeared for the petitioner, is that it is the immovable property which is subject matter of imposition of cess. This is clear from the language used in section 5. It was conceded that section 6 is capable of being read in two ways. It can either be read in the way of the authorities making the demand have interpreted. In other words giving the widest meaning to the expression "net profits" from mines it is possible to sustain the demand. It is however, suggested that a restricted meaning should be given to the words used. This is because of the language used in the charging section-Section 5, and the expression "and other immovable property" mentioned in section 6. 4. Learned Government pleader on the other hand contended that the words used are unambiguous and clear. There is no justification for reading any limitation into the words used. Mr. Asghar Hussain appearing for the District Board took the same stand. Mr. Hussain further contended that the track is admittedly immovable property. The net income derived by the Company is on account of utilisation of the track. It is thus income derived from immovable property which is being taxed. 5. The next contention that was raised by Mr. Sinha was that if the expression net profit from railways is interpreted in the way suggested by the respondents it would make the provision ultra vires, It was contended that the only item of List II of 7th Schedule of the Constitution which could be relevant are Entries 45 and 50. The provision aforesaid is not covered by either. If the relevant portion of section 6 is interpreted in the way suggested by the respondents the section itself would be ultravires the Constitution being beyond the Legislative power of the State Legislature. It is well settled, says the Learned Counsel, that if a provision can be interpreted in two ways, one of which makes it intra vires and the other ultra vires, such an interpretation should be given which upholds validity. It is well settled, says the Learned Counsel, that if a provision can be interpreted in two ways, one of which makes it intra vires and the other ultra vires, such an interpretation should be given which upholds validity. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand contended that the legislation in question is covered by item 18 of List II. Moreover similar limitations were not on the Legislative power when the Cess Act was enacted. 6. I now proceed to consider the first contention. It is a well settled rule of construction that an expression or expressions in a statute are controlled by its con text, by the scheme of the Statute and the object which the enactment seeks to achieve, State of Bihar Vs. Raghunandan Singh. The words and phrases occurring in the Statute are not to be taken in an Isolated or detached manner disassociated from the context (Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab). The meaning of words and expressions used take their colour from the context in which they are appearing (See 1965 (3) S.C.R. 161 , 165, 1956 S.C.R. 664, 673 and 1966 (1) S.C.R. 709 , 718). 7. I am persuaded to accept the contention of the petitioner for two main reasons. The main section, which may be characterised as the charging section is section 5. It speaks of liability of all immovable property to a local cess. Clearly, therefore, the scheme of the Act is not to tall business. It is only to levy a cess on the immovable property employed in carrying on business. Section 5 may be described as the king pin of the Statute. It is in the light of the Legislative scheme of imposing cess on immovable property that section 6, which deals of assessment of the cess has to be interpreted. The other reasons is that section 6 itself says that local cess shall be levied on net profits from mines, railways and other immovable property. This is also a strong indication that even in section 6 itself it is the immovable property which is contemplated to be assessable to cess. Of course, the tract of the railways is immovable property. But the income derived by the company is not wholly attributable to the track, but also to various movable properties which are employed in the business. Of course, the tract of the railways is immovable property. But the income derived by the company is not wholly attributable to the track, but also to various movable properties which are employed in the business. I am, there fore, persuaded to accept the contention of the petitioner that net profit from the railways must in the context of the Act, be given a restricted meaning and it is the not profit from immovable properties of the railways which is liable to the payment of the local cess. Thus the net profit of the company is referable partly to its ownership of immovable property and partly to its ownership of movable properties. It is only that portion of net profit which is derived from the use of the immovable property of the petitioner Company which is liable to cess. If that be the correct view the present demand contained in Annexures 3 to 7 is not sustainable. Of course, it would be open to the authorities to reassess the cess in the light of the legal position as explained, and after determining as to what portion of the net income is referable to its ownership of immovable property. Incidentally this appears to be the approach of the parties earlier, when an agreement was arrived at in 1953 between the Company and the District Board. Instead of going into meticulous details the parties had agreed to a fixed sum at that stage. 8. In this case it is not necessary to express any opinion on the second contention which was raised on behalf of the petitioner. 9. In the result this application is allowed, Annexure 3 to 7 are quashed, but it is made clear that the authorities would be entitled to re-assess the cess payable by the petitioner company. In the circumstances of the case I would not make any order as to costs. 10. S.P. Sinha, J. - I agree that the application has to be allowed and annexures 3 to 7 have to be quashed. 11. The levy of cess under the Cess Act is a levy on immovable property for certain purposes as stated in the preamble of the Act. The charging section under the Act is section 5 which has been quoted in the judgment of My lord the Chief Justice and it need, therefore, be not reproduced here. 11. The levy of cess under the Cess Act is a levy on immovable property for certain purposes as stated in the preamble of the Act. The charging section under the Act is section 5 which has been quoted in the judgment of My lord the Chief Justice and it need, therefore, be not reproduced here. The section, however clearly stated the field in which the Act is to apply all immovable properties situate in a district or a part of the district. Section 6 of the Act then prescribes the mode of assessing the cess. The local cess, according to the section is to be assessed on the annual value of lands. For the purposes of assessing the cess on other immovable property one of them being Railways, the section lays down that it shall be assessed "on the annual net profits." If this section is understood as authorising the Local Bodies to tax the annual net profit of the Railways, it would be taxing income and, there fore, would naturally become ultra vires, because tax on income other than agricultural income is a Central subject under Entry 82 in list of the VII schedule of the Constitution of India. Necessarily, therefore, the provisions contained in section 6 of the Act have to be so interpreted as to uphold its validity. The provisions of section 6 have to be under stood in the context of the charging section, namely, section 6 which, as stated earlier, charges to cess immovable property. How is then cess to be assessed in respect of the Railways, which, for its operations, namely, for the running of Railways, need, besides, the use of land, so many other things, such as Railways track, Railway engines wagons and such other machineries. The profit which arises in running a Railway is the outcome or not only the use of land, but of the use, of so many other factors and machineries. The whole thing taken together produces the profits from the running of Railways. It is neither land alone nor the Railway track, nor Railway engines with wagons, which by itself produces the profits. It is the machinery as a whole which produces profits. The whole thing taken together produces the profits from the running of Railways. It is neither land alone nor the Railway track, nor Railway engines with wagons, which by itself produces the profits. It is the machinery as a whole which produces profits. Essentially, therefore, where the Cess Act authorises the levy of cess of only on immovable property and in relation to Railways says that it is to be levied on its annual net profits, it can only mean that cess is to be levied by reference to the profits which has a direct bearing to the use of land. To put it in a mathematical way, if the total value of the assets, namely, the Railways as a whole is 100 and the annual value of the land which is utilised for running the railways is 5, the profit on running the railways being 10, the proportion in the profit by the use of land will bear the same ratio as the value of the land bears to the total value of the assets. It is only that part of the profit by reference to which a cess has to be assessed on the immoveable property. I have just indicated one method of assessing the cess, on the basis of the provisions contained in section 6 of the Act. There may be some other methods also for making such assessment. But this much is certain that assessment of cess on the total annual net profit of the railways is not contemplated in terms of section 6 read with section 5 of the Act. Application allowed.