JUDGMENT R. K. Gulati, J. - This group of writ petitions raises an important but vexatious question. 2. The petitioners are dealers of Kanpur dealing in machinery of sorts, mainly agricultural. Among the items of machinery in which they deal is diesel engine which is commonly used as an integral part of a pumping set being exclusively used by the farmers in lift irrigation employed to lift sub-soil water to irrigate their fields. 3. According to the petitioners, the agricultural implements and accessories thereof were exempted from the octroi duty by the State Government by its notifications in force at the material time and a water pump, being an agricultural implement, and a diesel engine including oil engine and centrifugal pumps, being its component part,would also be exempted from the octroi duty. 4. The Nagar Mahapalika. Kanpur, which is the sole respondent in all these writ petitions, has been denying the relief to the petitioners and had been levying octroi duty on such diesel engines. The contention of respondent, Nagar Mahapalika is that a diesel engine including Oil engine and centrifugal pumps even though parts of the water pump, are used in diverse ways and not exclusively for agricultural operation. Therefore, diesel engines including oil engine and centrifugal pumps do not qualify for exemption which is available only to such agricultural implements as are exclusively imported for agricultural purposes which is not the case here. The second contention, based on a notification of 1984, is that the water lift of the type of Persian wheel is only exempt from the octroi duty and as such a diesel engine, which is used for water lift of a kind, different from Persian wheel is not exempt. 5. We have been called upon to determine which of the rival contentions is correct. 6. Before proceeding further, it may be clarified that in these petitions, as per averments contained therein, articles, in which the petitioners are dealing, are tube well fitting, centrifugal pumps, engines, diesel pumping set, electric motors etc., which are said to be imported for agricultural purposes only and are also sold to farmers for agricultural purposes only. 6. Before proceeding further, it may be clarified that in these petitions, as per averments contained therein, articles, in which the petitioners are dealing, are tube well fitting, centrifugal pumps, engines, diesel pumping set, electric motors etc., which are said to be imported for agricultural purposes only and are also sold to farmers for agricultural purposes only. However, the arguments were addressed to us only with reference to diesel engine and pumping set including oil engine and centrifugal pumps that they are exempt from payment of octroi duty and this alone appears to be the issue between the contesting parties under the notifications of which detailed reference shall be made later in this judgment. 7. Further before we attempt to answer the question, it is necessary to state briefly the legislative history and the background of the issue in dispute in these petitions. 8. Agricultural implements have enjoyed exemption from octroi duty since long. The first notification relevant for our purpose is notification No. 4193-B/XI-C-86-49 dated Nov. 30. 1957. That was a notification under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 which has since been replaced so far Kanpur is concerned by the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (U.P. Act No. II of 1959). The relevant portion of the aforesaid notification is as under : "......it is hereby notified that the Governor, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 296(1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, has made the following amendment in the Octroi Rules published with notification No. 3320/X1-708-B dated Oct. 24, 1926, as subsequently amended :- Amendment After sub-cl. ( 14) of R. 182 relating to exemption from octroi on page 48 of the Municipal Account to amend the following as an explanation." "Explanation :- The following should be deemed to be agricultural implements and machinery for purposes of the exemption, allowed in this sub-clause" : (1) Tractors (together with all their parts/ including trailers). (2) ................. (37) Water lifts of different types such as Persian wheels". 9. The next notification relevant for our purpose is notification No. 1878-V/X1-6-270-72 dated Mar. 30, 1973. The relevant portion of the notification is reproduced below : "In exercise of the powers under sub-s. (2) of 5.203 of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika, Adhiniyam, 1959 (U.P. Act No. 11 of 1959) the Governor is pleased to notify that the Nagar Mahapalika. Kanpur has in exercise of the powers conferred by cl. 30, 1973. The relevant portion of the notification is reproduced below : "In exercise of the powers under sub-s. (2) of 5.203 of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika, Adhiniyam, 1959 (U.P. Act No. 11 of 1959) the Governor is pleased to notify that the Nagar Mahapalika. Kanpur has in exercise of the powers conferred by cl. (b) of subs. (2) of S. 172 of the said Adhiniyam......... Description of tax with Schedule. An octroi on goods and animals brought within the octroi limit of the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur for consumption, use or sale therein to be levied at the rates shown in the following schedule and subject to the exemption given therein. Schedule Following Article shall he exempt from octroi : " 15. Agricultural implements and accessories thereof which are imported for agricultural purpose only, excluding pharsa and Tractors". 10. The next relevant notification is dated Aug. 27, 1976. The relevant portion of. the same is quoted below :- "No 4471-B/XI-6-270-72 U.P. Act 2159-Sch. 76 dated Lucknow Aug. 27, 1976. In Exercise of the powers under sub-s. (2) of S. 203 of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1969 (U.P. Act No. II of 1959) read with S. 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act 1904 (U.P. Act No. I of 1904) and in supersession of Government notification 1878-B/XI-6270-72 dated Dec. 4, 1974 ....... * * * * * The following articles shall be exempt from octroi : 15. "Agricultural implements and accessories thereof which are imported for agricultural purpose only, excluding pharsa and Tractors". 11. The last notification on the subject is Notification No. 21 10-1/Xi-9-331/81 Lucknow dated April 24, 1984. the relevant entry is at serial No. 37 of the list of agricultural implements and machines exempted from octroi duty. The relevant portion of the notification is as follows :- "In exercise of the powers under sub-s. (2) of S. 203 of Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 I U. P. Act No. 11 of 1959) read with S. 21 of the U.P. General Clause Act 1904 (U.P. Act No. I of 1904) and in supersession of Government notification.... * * * * Following Articles shall be exempt from octroi : "15. Agricultural implements and machines whose details on list are given below, which are imported for agricultural purpose only excluding pharsa and Tractor". * * * * Following Articles shall be exempt from octroi : "15. Agricultural implements and machines whose details on list are given below, which are imported for agricultural purpose only excluding pharsa and Tractor". Note : Spare parts and accessories imported for assembling to aforesaid implements and machines could not be exempted for Octroi, only complete implements and machines would be entitled for exemptions." Detail of agricultural implements and machines used for agriculture purposes are given below : 1. All kinds of ploughs. 2............ x x x x x 37. Water lifts of different types such as Persian wheels. 12. We are concerned mainly with notification of 1976. Except in few petitions in which the interpretation of the notification of 1984 is also involved. From the perusal of all the notifications mentioned above, it is clear that the State Government has been exempting from octroi duty the agricultural implements since long. Except for the difference of language and construction of the notification, there is no substantial difference between the various notifications. All of them are directed towards giving relief from octroi duty to the farmer in respect of tools and implements used by him in agricultural operations. The only significant change is that while in the notification of 1957, tractors were specifically included in the list of agricultural implements and machinery entitled to exemption. they were left out in all the three subsequent notifications for the reasons not quite obvious because a tractor is a machine used for agricultural operations. We are concerned in this bunch of writ petitions with pumping sets diesel engine including oil enginees, centrifugal pumps (this expression for the purpose of bravity hereinafter referred to as diesel engine only in this judgment) which to our mind, would be covered by the entry of the notification dated 30-11-1957 at serial No.37 which is in the following words : "Water lifts of different types such as persian wheels." 13. By this entry, exemption is granted to water lifts of all kind such as a persian wheel which has been mentioned by way of illustration. The water lift of a pumping set variety is obviously covered by this entry and since the diesel engine is a component part of the pump the same will be covered and would be entitled to exemption from the octroi duty. The water lift of a pumping set variety is obviously covered by this entry and since the diesel engine is a component part of the pump the same will be covered and would be entitled to exemption from the octroi duty. The subsequent notifications of 1973 and 1976 are in identical terms so far as agricultural implements are concerned. Instead of giving a list of agricultural implements and accessories entitled to exemption as in-the notification of 1957. the exemption to the agricultural implements and accessories has been provided in a blanket clause mentioned at serial No. 15 of the notification in the following language : "Agricultural implements and accessories thereof which are imported for agricultural purpose only excluding pharsa and Tractors". 14. We have to interpret in these cases primarily the entry of notification of 1976. The first question, which we have to decide, is as to whether the diesel engines of the type involved in these cases are agricultural implements, being the component part of a water pump used in what is called "lift irrigation". The fact that the State Government regards pumping sets as an agricultural implement admits of no doubt. In the very first notification 1957, the Government allowed exemption in respect of water lifts of all types included in the list of articles deemed to be agricultural implement and machinery for the purpose of exemption from the octroi duty. That a water pumping set is a kind of water lift also admits of no doubt. In fact, there is a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Engineering Traders, Begum Bridge Road. Meerut v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1973 UPTC 91 1 (FB) where while dealing with question of exemption from sales tax in respect of agricultural implements, the Court held that water pump used in lift irrigation are agricultural implements of which a diesel engine is an integral part and, therefore, entitled to exemption. The subsequent notification of 1984, reverts to the method of giving a list of agricultural implements and machineries entitled to exemption from octroi duty as in notification of 1957. instead of giving exemption by a blanket entry like in the notifications of 1973 and 1976. But the entry relating to water lifts is in identical words at serial No. 37 as the entry at the same serial number in the notification of 1957. instead of giving exemption by a blanket entry like in the notifications of 1973 and 1976. But the entry relating to water lifts is in identical words at serial No. 37 as the entry at the same serial number in the notification of 1957. The conclusion, therefore, is that so far as water lifts are concerned, the position has remained the same throughout. Water lift had been considered by the State Government as an agricultural implement right from 1957 onwards and there is the decision of the Full Bench of this Court (supra) which puts a seal of approval on this proposition. So far the position is very clear, namely that the water pump would be entitled to exemption as falling within the entry "water lift of all kind". The component part of water lift would also be entitled to exemption because no water pump is complete without an engine which provides the energy to lift water from sub-soil. 15. The difficulty, however.arises because of the rider attached to the entry of the notification, 1976 as also to the corresponding entry in the notification of 1984. That rider is that "exemption is granted to the agricultural implement and accessories thereof to only such items as are imported for agricultural purposes only". If we give a literal interpretation to the rider, the exemption would be allowed only to a farmer who himself and directly imports an agricultural implement for his own use. The petitioners are not agriculturists or farmers and they cannot say that they have imported agricultural implements for agricultural purposes only. They are traders and have imported them as stock-in-trade for sale. It is, therefore, not possible for them to say, much less to prove, that they have imported the diesel engine for agricultural purpose. It is also not possible for them to say at that point of time when the goods have not yet reached their business premises, that the diesel engines imported by them would be sold to customers who will use them for agricultural purposes. They would not know at that point of time who their customers would be and how they would use the diesel engine after purchasing them. There is no guarantee that all his customers would be farmers and all of them would use the engine purchased by them for agricultural purposes. They would not know at that point of time who their customers would be and how they would use the diesel engine after purchasing them. There is no guarantee that all his customers would be farmers and all of them would use the engine purchased by them for agricultural purposes. Any declaration made by the dealer in terms of the rider referred to above would only be a pious wish. Such a declaration would utterly be meaningless. Its correctness can neither be vouchsafed by the dealer nor can its observance or compliance be enforced by the authorities concerned. What could be the purpose sought to be achieved by this rider, it is difficult to understand. It means either that the article exempted be such as could only be used for agricultural purposes and for no other purpose or it could mean that the article should be sold to farmers only. It is not possible, theoretically speaking, to achieve either of these two objective completely. This Court has already held in Engineering Traders Begum Bridge Road, Meerut v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1973 Tax LR 1961) (FB) (supra) that an article can always, though rarely, be put to a different use than for which it is designed and, therefore, in order that an appliance may be agricultural appliance, the real test is not that an agricultural implement should exclusively be used for agricultural purposes but it should be commonly so used and be intimately and directly connected with agricultural operations. The decision appears to have been accepted by the State and as such there was no point in adding the rider in the notifications of 1976 and 1984. The second reason for the rider might have been to ensure that the benefit of exemption goes only to the farmer and not to any one else. That would be possible only if the article in question could be sold to the farmer to the exclusion of all others. That objective is again impossible to achieve. Even though the bulk of the diesel engines would be sold to the farmer there would still be some stray cases in which the diesel engine is purchased by a person other than a farmer for a purpose other than agricultural operations. Even in a case of a farmer there is no guarantee that he would always use diesel engine etc. Even in a case of a farmer there is no guarantee that he would always use diesel engine etc. for drawing water to irrigate his fields. He may as well use a diesel engine to draw drinking water or to fill a tank or pond used for rearing fish or washing his laundry. It is not possible to conceive of a fool proof scheme to achieve the twofold objectives underlying in the rider. Such a rider appears to be superfluous and the State would have been well advised not to put the rider in the notification as was the case with the notification of 1957. Ordinarily, the courts will not hold provisions like this to be superfluous and would try to give them some meaning consistent with the intention of the legislature but when such an attempt results in absurdity or frustrates the very object of the legislative provisions the Courts can and should depart from the rule against redundancy and the literal interpretation. Reference in this connection be made to the following observations of the Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese v. I.T.O., Ernakulam, (1981)131 ITR 597 at 605-606 : "It is now a well settled rule of construction that where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the legislature. the court may modify the language used by the legislature or even "do some violence" to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention of the legislature and produce a rational construction vide Luke v. IRC. (1963) AC 557 : (1964) 54 ITR 692 : The Court may also in such a case read into the statutory provision a condition which, though not expressed, is implicit as constituting the basic assumption underlying the statutory provision". 16. As pointed above, if we give literal interpretation to the rider, it would lead to absurd results and would defeat the very purpose of the notification namely to give relief from octroi duty to the farmer in respect of agricultural implements and machinery. As a result of literal interpretation, we would be obliged to dismiss all the petitions as the condition laid down by the rider is not satisfied to earn a remission of octroi duty even though the diesel engines in question are agricultural implements used by and large by the farmers. As a result of literal interpretation, we would be obliged to dismiss all the petitions as the condition laid down by the rider is not satisfied to earn a remission of octroi duty even though the diesel engines in question are agricultural implements used by and large by the farmers. As a result, the petitioners may be deprived of the benefit but in fact and in reality it would be the farmer who would be affected as the traders would pass on the burden to the farmers by adding octroi to the price. We are sure this could never have been the intention of the framer of the notification. The notification was clearly meant for the benefit of the farmer and we must not construe the notification in such a manner as to frustrate that objective. We must, therefore, hold that the condition that an agricultural implement would be entitled to exemption only if it is imported for agricultural purpose only is superfluous and in any case not capable of strict compliance. Moreover, when an article has been accepted by the State to be an agricultural implement, there arises a strong presumption that it would be used for agricultural purposes. There was no need to add a condition that the exemption would be admissible only when agricultural instrument is used for agricultural purpose only. That goes without saying. The proper course would have been to select the agricultural implements and to exempt them from octroi duty simpliciter as was the case with the notification of 1957 and with a similar exemption granted by the U.P. Government under the Sales Tax Act in respect of agricultural implements. 17. However, the petitioners in the instant cases have tried to fulfil the condition contained in the rider as best as possible under the circumstances. Some of them have filed a declaration at the octroi harrier that diesel engines were being imported for agricultural purpose only. 17. However, the petitioners in the instant cases have tried to fulfil the condition contained in the rider as best as possible under the circumstances. Some of them have filed a declaration at the octroi harrier that diesel engines were being imported for agricultural purpose only. Others have had similar endorsement made on their invoice by the supplier of the diesel pump, while others have filed various documents in their respective petitions as well certificates from the State Bank' of India and other nationalised banks to the effect that the diesel engines were sold to the agriculturists who had been sanctioned loans by the concerned authorities of the State Government and disbursement of such loans to those agriculturists was through the banks concerned for the purchase of such diesel engines. Having regard to the circumstances, this, in our opinion, amounts to sufficient compliance with the condition laid down in the notification. Not only this but authorities concerned have also accepted this position on a representation by one of the petitioners (Writ No. 297 of 1980) that he was importing diesel engine for agricultural purposes only. The District Magistrate, Kanpur reduced the octroi duty from Rs. 10/-per quintal to Rs. 5/- per quintal and the receipts issued to him of the payment of the octroi duty, the concerned officer has endorsed the receipt with the remark "for i agricultural purpose". 18. In our opinion the grievance of the petitioners is justified. They are entitled to exemption which has been denied to them without justification. The conclusion we have arrived at is directly supported by an earlier decision of this Court in M/s. A-One Engineers & Builders, Kanpur v. Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, 1975 JPTC 338. In that case the question involved was identical even though relating to the notification of 1973. However, as the notification of 1973 is similar to the notification of 1976 with which we are concerned, that decision is applicable on all fours with the facts of the case before us and, therefore, it is not necessary for us to dilate further on the question. 19. Coming now to the notification of 1984, there is no material difference so far as the objective of the various notifications is concerned. All are intended to grant exemption to agricultural implements including the water pump and their component parts. 19. Coming now to the notification of 1984, there is no material difference so far as the objective of the various notifications is concerned. All are intended to grant exemption to agricultural implements including the water pump and their component parts. The only difference, as pointed out earlier is that in the notification of 1984, the agricultural implements have been listed by name like in the notification of 1957. In the intervening two notifications blanket exemption in respect of all the agricultural implements and accessories was given including water pump. For the reasoning already given, the petitioners covered by the notification of 1984 would also be entitled to exemption in respect of diesel engines. 20. An half-hearted attempt was made by the learned counsel for the Nagar Mahapalika to defeat the claim of the petitioners by relying on the note appended to the notification of 1984 which is to the following effect : "Spare parts and accessories imported for assembling the agricultural implements and machines could not be exempted for octroi duty. Complete implements and machines would be entitled for exemption". 21. According to him, the diesel engine was only a spare part which had specifically been singled out for denying exemption. This argument is completely devoid of any force. In the first instance, diesel engine is not a spare and an accessory. It is an integral part without which a water pump is not complete. Secondly, only such spare parts and accessories have been denied exemption which have been imported for assembling the agricultural implements and machines. It is nobody's case that petitioners are assembling the water pump from spare parts and accessories imported for that purpose. There is no averment to this effect in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Nagar Mahapalika and as such we are not inclined to entertain such a plea which requires investigation of facts and for which no foundation has been laid in the pleadings of the parties. 22. We may also notice in passing the argument of Mr. S. P. Gupta, the learned counsel for one of the petitioners that the list of agricultural implements annexed to the notification of 1984 is not exhaustive and is illustrative and even if the diesel engine does not fall in any of the entries of the list, it would still be entitled to exemptions being an agricultural implement. S. P. Gupta, the learned counsel for one of the petitioners that the list of agricultural implements annexed to the notification of 1984 is not exhaustive and is illustrative and even if the diesel engine does not fall in any of the entries of the list, it would still be entitled to exemptions being an agricultural implement. We do not think that the list is illustrative. However, as we have already held, the diesel engine would be covered by the entries relating to water lifts of all kind, it is not necessary for us to take serious notice of this contention. 23. In the result, writ petitions other than Writ Petitions Nos. 297 of 1980, 906 of 1984 and 910 of 1984 in which the authority of the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur to realise octroi duty on the basis of the notification of the year 1976 has been challenged succeed and are allowed to this extent that the respondent Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur is directed to refund the octroi duty realised from the petitioners during the period commencing the date of the institution of the respective writ petitions up to 24th April, 1986 namely the date of commencement of . 1984 notification, in respect of pumping sets including diesel engines, oil engines and centrifugal pumps imported by the petitioners on production of receipts for payment of octroi duty in respect of which refund is being claimed after due verification by the concerned officer of the Nagar Mahapalika. 24. Writ Petitions Nos. 297 of 1980, 906 of :1984 and 910 of 1984 in which reliefs have been claimed on the basis of 1984 notification also which came into force on 24th April, 1984 also succeed and are allowed to this extent that the respondent Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur is directed to refund octroi duty realised from the petitioners during the period commencing the date of the institution of the respective writ petitions up to the date of delivery of judgment in respect of pumping sets including diesel engines, oil engines and centrifugal pumps imported by the petitioners. The refund shall, however, be made to the petitioners on production of receipts for payment of octroi duty in respect of which refund is being claimed after due verification by the concerned officer of the Nagar Mahapalika. The refund shall, however, be made to the petitioners on production of receipts for payment of octroi duty in respect of which refund is being claimed after due verification by the concerned officer of the Nagar Mahapalika. A writ of mandamus in these three writ petitions shall also be issued to the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur not to realise octroi duty from the petitioners in respect of pumping sets including diesel engines, oil engines and centrifugal pumps imported by them inasmuch the petitioners have been found entitled to exemption from octroi duty on the basis of 1984 notification also. 25. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs in each of these writ petitions.