JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. B. P. SARAF, J. - By this reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 made at the instance of the Revenue, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Bombay has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion : "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal correct in law in holding that 'galvanised iron sheet pipes' are covered by entry 1 of Schedule A of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 up to May 10, 1973 ?" 2. The material facts of the case relevant for determining the issue arising out of the above question are as follows : The assessee, M/s. Shri Iron and Metal Works, Aurangabad, is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of agricultural implements, galvanised iron pipes, etc. The controversy is in regard to classification of galvanised iron pipes for the purpose of levy of sales tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ("the Act") during the period April 1, 1967 to May 31, 1968. According to the assessee it has to be treated as "agricultural implements", the sales of which were exempt from tax under the Act by virtue of entry 1 of Schedule A read with section 5 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act provides that no sales or purchase tax shall be payable on the sales or purchases of goods specified in Schedule A to the Act. "Agricultural implements" were specified in entry 1 of the said Schedule. At the material time, the following was the description of goods falling under the said entry : "Agricultural implements (including any parts thereof which are sold at a price of not less than five rupees each) worked or operated exclusively by human or animal agency." The Sales Tax Officer did not accept the above contention of the assessee and held that the galvanised iron pipes sold by the assessee could not be regarded as agricultural implements falling under entry 1 of Schedule A. The sales thereof were therefore held to be taxable under the residuary entry, entry 22 of Schedule E to the Act. 3. Against the above order of the Sales Tax Officer, the assessee appealed to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Assistant Commissioner upheld the order of the Sales Tax Officer and dismissed the appeal. 3. Against the above order of the Sales Tax Officer, the assessee appealed to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Assistant Commissioner upheld the order of the Sales Tax Officer and dismissed the appeal. The assessee thereupon went in further appeal to the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The contention of the assessee before the Tribunal was that the galvanised iron pipes ("G.I. pipes") were used by the purchasers in their farms for irrigation purposes and hence they should be regarded as "agricultural implements". The Tribunal accepted the above contention of the assessee and held that the G.I. pipes sold by the assessee being used by the agriculturists in their agricultural operations had to be treated as "agricultural implements" falling under entry 1 of Schedule A. Hence this reference at the instance of the Revenue. 4. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The contention of Mr. N. T. Saraf, learned counsel for the Revenue is that G.I. pipes cannot be regarded as agricultural implement. G.I. pipes, according to him, are pipes which have diverse uses. It cannot be held to be agricultural implement in the present case by reason of its user by the agriculturists. Mr. R. V. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, on the other hand, submits that the expression "agricultural implements" is wide enough to include galvanised iron pipes which are used by the agriculturists for irrigation purposes. Reliance was placed by Mr. Patel in support of his above contention on a certificate granted by the Technical Officer, Intensive Cultivation, Seeds, Manures and Fertilizers, which had been produced by the assessee before the Assistant Commissioner at the time of hearing of the appeal, wherein it is stated that the galvanised iron pipes manufactured and sold by the assessee were found useful for irrigation of agricultural fields. According to learned counsel, the use of the G.I. pipes by the purchasers in the agricultural fields for supply of water for cultivation is sufficient justification for the same being treated as agricultural implements. Reference was made in this connection to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Limited [1975] 35 STC 554 and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Engineering Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1973] 31 STC 456. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. Reference was made in this connection to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Limited [1975] 35 STC 554 and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Engineering Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1973] 31 STC 456. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We have also perused entry 1 of Schedule A as also the decisions referred to by the counsel for the assessee. Entry 1 of Schedule A refers to agricultural implements, worked or operated by human or animal agency. The parts of such implements also fall within this entry. Thus to fall under this entry, the item in question must be an "agricultural implement". It should be known and regarded as such. An item, which has an independent identity of its own, and which can be put to various uses, cannot be treated as agricultural implement when it is purchased by an agriculturist and used in agricultural operations. The use to which it is put by a particular customer is not decisive factor in arriving at the proper classification in which it can be put. The proper test to be applied in such cases is the common parlance or trade or commercial parlance test. Judging from this test it is difficult to hold G.I. pipes to be "agricultural implements". "G.I. pipes" is an item of day to day use of all sections of the society, viz., householders, traders, agriculturists, factories, industries and water-supply units. It has an independent identity of its own and it is known and understood in common language as "G.I. pipe". In popular or commercial parlance, both dealers and the buyers of "G.I. pipe" refer to it as G.I. pipe. Even an agriculturist, who goes to buy G.I. pipe for use in his farm, would ask for G.I. pipe and not agricultural implement. It is never described by any other name. It is G.I. pipe and known and described as G.I. pipe irrespective of the use to which it is put or is likely to be put. There does not appear to be any serious controversy in this case in regard to the above common parlance or commercial parlance meaning of G.I. pipe. The claim of the assessee for its being treated as agricultural implement is based on its user by the purchasers for watering the crops in the fields. There does not appear to be any serious controversy in this case in regard to the above common parlance or commercial parlance meaning of G.I. pipe. The claim of the assessee for its being treated as agricultural implement is based on its user by the purchasers for watering the crops in the fields. The certificate of the Technical Officer, Intensive Cultivation, is also relied upon only to show that the G.I. pipes in question are useful for irrigation of agricultural fields. This claim in our opinion is not tenable in view of the fact that G.I. pipes being an item which is susceptible to diverse uses cannot be classified on the basis of a particular use to which it is put. In fact, an item like G.I. pipe which has diverse uses, none of which can be said to be general or predominant, cannot be interpreted with reference to its user. This brings us to the "user test" which is some times applied for interpreting items of taxing statutes, according to which use to which the goods can be put can also be considered in interpreting an item. However, this rule has its own limitations. Certain goods may be put to different uses by different persons. That cannot justify application of different rates of tax for the sales of the very same product by different dealers depending upon the use to which they would be put by the purchasers. 6. From the above discussion, it is clear that G.I. pipes being an item having diverse uses, no use being more predominant or common than the other, it cannot be interpreted and classified for the purpose of taxation with reference to its user by the purchasers. It is known in common parlance and trade and commercial parlance as "G.I. pipe" and has to be interpreted and classified as such for the purpose of levy of sales tax. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in the present case in holding it to be an agricultural implement by referring to the use to which it had been put by the purchaser. G.I. pipes therefore would not fall under entry 1 of Schedule A as it stood at the material time. Hence it would fall under the residuary entry, entry 22 of Schedule E. 7. We have also perused the decisions referred to by the counsel for the assessee. G.I. pipes therefore would not fall under entry 1 of Schedule A as it stood at the material time. Hence it would fall under the residuary entry, entry 22 of Schedule E. 7. We have also perused the decisions referred to by the counsel for the assessee. We, however, find that none of those two decisions has any relevance to the determination of the controversy. The controversy in the decision of this Court in Shetkari Sahakari Sangh [1975] 35 STC 554 was whether oil engines sold to agriculturists for working pumping sets were agricultural machinery. This Court held it to be agricultural machinery. In Engineering Traders [1973] 31 STC 456 [FB] the Allahabad High Court held water pumping sets to be agricultural implements. The ratio of these decisions have no application to the present case. 8. For the reasons set out above, we hold that "galvanised iron pipes" are not agricultural implements within the meaning of entry 1 of Schedule A to the Act as it stood at the material time. 9. In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.