Judgment Hari Lal Agrawal and Nazir Ahmad JJ. 1. The Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, has stated a case under Sec.33(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 , and referred the following three questions for opinion of this Court on the applications made by the revenue/department as well as the dealer : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that electric pumps were agricultural machinery only if they were sold for the purpose of irrigating agricultural land and if they were sold for non-agricultural purposes, they were machinery or machines other than agricultural machinery as framed ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the electric motors were machineries and machines within the meaning of the expression used in serial No. 31 of Notification No. 9134/F.T. dated 1st July, 1959, as amended ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the electric transformers were machineries and machines within the meaning of the expression as used in serial No. 31 of Notification No. 9134/F.T. dated 1st July, 1959, as amended ? 2. The dispute lies in a narrow compass as to whether a dealer is entitled to get exemption from general sales tax of 1 per cent on three items, namely, (1) transformers, (2) electric pumps, and (3) electric motors. The exemptions are claimed under item No. 31 to-Schedule I of the list of goods exempted from the levy of general sales tax issued under Sec. 4(3)(a). Item No. 31 reads as follows : All machineries and machines including spare parts and accessories thereof, worked by electricity, steam, diesel or petrol, excluding locomotive engines and agricultural machineries and implements and spare parts thereof. 3. It may be mentioned that the Chairman and the Member of the Tribunal who have written separate and long judgments, have differed between themselves, as a result of which the Deputy Commissioners finding that the pumping sets were agricultural machinery was set aside and the case was ordered to be remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of a fresh decision after determining the purpose for which the pumping sets were sold in the light of the directions contained in the order of the Chairman. 4. 4. We shall deal with the claim of exemption over pumping sets in the first instance as that can be disposed of shortly. From a perusal of item No. 31 of the Schedule, just extracted above, it would appear that the agricultural machineries and implements and spare parts thereof have been excluded from the privilege of exemption from the levy of the general sales tax. It is for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the pumping sets sold by the dealer were sold for the purposes of use as agricultural implements or otherwise, that a remand order has been passed by the Tribunal. We may straightway refer to a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Engineering Traders V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh [1973] 31 STC 456 (All) [FB], where exactly a similar question arose as to whether pumping sets connected intimately with agricultural and commonly used and understood as agricultural implements, were covered under entry 38 of the schedule to the notification dated 1st April, 1960, issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Repelling the argument of the nature that was advanced before us by Mr. Sahay that electric pumps can be used for various other purposes besides for agricultural purposes, it was observed by the Allahabad High Court that it was "a matter of common knowledge, and it has not been disputed, that in recent times farmers are pressing into aid water pumps in order to irrigate their fields..." Earlier it was observed that "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 and less dependent on natural irrigation by rain". 5. Learned counsel for the dealer, however, referred to a Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in the case of Karnal Machinery Store V/s. Assessing Authority, Karnal reported in the same volume at page 3. Both these cases have been noticed by the learned Members of the Tribunal and it is on the basis of the Punjab case that a remand has been directed. Both these cases have been noticed by the learned Members of the Tribunal and it is on the basis of the Punjab case that a remand has been directed. We, however, do not feel persuaded to take recourse to the remand order and take aid of the Punjab case that the main purpose for which the machinery is used must be adopted for the purpose of its consideration. Learned counsel for the opposite party had also referred to some other cases of tractors and the like where it was held that the use of the tractor could not be said to confine to agricultural purposes only. We, however, do not feel that the ratio of those cases, namely, Pashabhai Patel & Co. (P.) Ltd. V/s. Collector of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State [1964] 15 STC 32 (Bom) and Agrawal Brothers V/s. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh [1965] 16 STC 860 (MP), would have any application to the facts of this cass as, in our opinion, it is the common use and parlance in which an appliance is understood and used would decide its fate for application of the item of exemption. We would, therefore, reject the claim of exemption by the dealer and answer question No. (1) in favour of the department and against the dealer. 6. Now we take up question No. (2) dealing with electric motors. The dealer has succeeded from the Tribunal on this claim where it has been held that the electric motors are covered under the mischief of the expression "machinery". Learned Government Pleader No. IV, however, wanted to wriggle out of those findings on the submission that the electric motors were electric goods and, therefore, they should not be covered under the general description of all "machineries". He also referred, in support of his contention, to the case of State of Orissa V/s. Rama Engineering and Manufacturing Works [1967] 37 STC 182, a case from Orissa, where the question was as to whether the electric motors would come under entry 34 of the Schedule under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, and thus liable to sales tax on sale of electric motors. If we may say so with respect, this judgment is a short judgment and we do not find much discussion of the issue; and on reference to certain decisions the conclusion was reached by the learned Judges that the tractor parts and electric motors were not exigible to tax at a lesser rate of 5 per cent but at higher rate of 7 per cent under entry No. 60 which dealt with machinery and spare parts and accessories thereto. The word "machinery" was not defined in the Orissa Act and, therefore, the learned Judges draw support from the case of the Calcutta High Court. In this situation we find it difficult to follow the ratio of the Orissa case as, in our opinion, the electric motors in question are fully covered within the purview of "machinery", particularly when item No. 31 mentions that the machinery could be worked either by electricity or steam or diesel or petrol. In view of this specific description in item No. 31, we feel no hesitation in answering this question in favour of the dealer and against the department. 7. Now remains the question of transformers. The claim for exemption on transformers is also based upon the exemption provided under item No. 31. The learned Member and Chairman have differed on this question. In this connection we may mention that by a notification dated the 12th September, 1961, item No. 43 was added to the Schedule reading as "electric transformers manufactured in Bihar". As already stated above, the learned Member and the Chairman have differed regarding the claim of the dealer. Whereas, according to the Chairman, the transformers will be deemed to be included under item No. 31 under "machinery", as according to him the addition of item No. 43 was merely surplusage, according to the opinion of the learned member on the insertion of a separate item specifically dealt with the transformers, the general item would be deemed to be excluded. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the dealer, had taken us through various items of the rate schedule to impress upon us that in view of the provisions made in the rate, the intention of the Government could not be manifested to apply item No. 43 as a relevant matter for the purpose of consideration of the electric transformer as, if any impetus or assistance was to be given to the transformer manufacturers in Bihar, there could have been suitable provisions made in those schedules. 9. We are afraid to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the dealer in view of the well-known maxim "generalia specialibus non derogant". It is well-known principle of construction so far taxing statute is concerned that it must be strictly construed. We are not prepared to accept the submission advanced on behalf of the dealer that insertion of item No. 43 was only by way of abundant caution to make the matter more clear so that the manufacturers of transformers in the State of Bihar may be doubly assured. As the claim for exemption is referable to inclusion of an item in the schedule under the very scheme of Sec. 4 of the Act, it is difficult to hold that the notification was meaningless and would have no application to the specified articles mentioned by a separate item so as to confine the exemption to the manufacturers of transformers within the State of Bihar alone, thus withdrawing the exemption on transformers manufactured outside the State of Bihar. In our view, this was a deliberate and purposeful inclusion to give the transformer manufacturers of Bihar an edge over the manufacturers of outside the State, and in that view of the matter we reject the contention just noticed above. The answer to the last question, therefore, is also in favour of the department and against the dealer. 10. In the result, the answer to questions Nos. (1) and (3) go in favour of the department and that of question No. (2) in favour of the dealer. The reference is answered accordingly. In the circumstances, however, we shall leave the parties to bear their own costs.