JUDGMENT This is a sale tax reference under section 44 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, at the instance of the Revenue and the following question has been referred for answer of this Court, which reads as under : "Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that a dealer who has been deemed as a registered dealer for the purposes of section 7(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, will not be deemed to be a registered dealer under the Entry Tax Act when section 13 of the M.P. Entry Tax Act has not adopted section 7 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act ?" 2. The brief facts giving rise to this reference are thus : The non-applicant/assessee - M/s. Uttam Construction Co., Khairagarh, is engaged in the business of construction of bridges. The assessee had not submitted his returns. The assessee was assessed to entry tax for Diwali for the assessment year 1977-78. Aggrieved against the assessment, the assessee preferred a appeal under section 13 of the M.P. Entry Tax Act red with section 38(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1958") and deposited 50 per cent of the balance demand. A notice was given to the assessee by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raipur, as to why his appeal may not be summarily rejected as he has not deposited 75 per cent of the balance amount The assessee/non-applicant in his reply to show cause notice, contended that he was only liable to deposit 25 per cent of the balance amount. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raipur, without hearing the assessee, dismissed the appeal summarily under rule 58 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, read with section 13 of the Entry Tax Act, vide order dated July 20, 1981. 3. Aggrieved against the order dated July 20, 1981, the assessee/non-applicant preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, on the ground that he was not heard when his first appeal we rejected ad secondly, he should have been given time to deposit the balance amount. 4. 3. Aggrieved against the order dated July 20, 1981, the assessee/non-applicant preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, on the ground that he was not heard when his first appeal we rejected ad secondly, he should have been given time to deposit the balance amount. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant/Revenue before the Board of Revenue was that a show cause notice was given to the non-applicant/assessee and he was given due opportunity of being heard and no further opportunity is required to be given. 5. The Board of Revenue vide order dated November 23, 1982, accepted the appeal of the non-applicant/assessee only on two grounds, namely, that whenever a serious question of law arises, it will be appropriate in the ends of justice to hear the legal arguments put forth by a counsel ad secondly when the non-applicant/assessee has contended that he has only to pay 25 per cent and has already paid 25 per cent and if the appellate authority was of the view that the non-applicant/assessee is required to deposit 75 per cent of the balance amount he must have given time to the non-applicant/assessee to deposit the remaining amount. It was further held by the Board of Revenue that the non-applicant was not a registered dealer and he was only deemed as a registered dealer under section 7(2) and (4) of the Act. Even for the purposes of Sales Tax Act, deeming provision applies to sections 17, 18, 19, 22, 22-A and 26 only and not for the rest of the provisions of the Act, applicable to Be Entry Tax Act. It was held that under section 13 of the Entry Tax Act, section 7 has not been adopted and as such the non-applicant/assessee would come within the category of section 38(3)(e) of the Act being an unregistered dealer. 6. The question arises that whether the non-applicant/assessee can be deemed to be a registered dealer for the purpose of section 7 of the Act or not. Section 13 of the Entry Tax Act says that certain provisions of the Sales Tax Act shall apply to the M.P. Entry Tax Act. Section 13 of the M.P. Entry Tax Act reads as under : "Section 13 : Certain provisions of Sales Tax Act to apply. Section 13 of the Entry Tax Act says that certain provisions of the Sales Tax Act shall apply to the M.P. Entry Tax Act. Section 13 of the M.P. Entry Tax Act reads as under : "Section 13 : Certain provisions of Sales Tax Act to apply. - Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder, sections 3, 7-A, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 22-A, 22-C, 23, 24, 24-A, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 33-B, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 39-A, 40, 41, 42, 42-A, 43, 44, 45, 45-A, 46, 47, 47-A, 48 and 51 of the Sales Tax Act and the rules, orders and notifications issued thereunder shall mutatis mutandis apply to a dealer in respect of entry tax levied and payable under this Act as if those sections were mutatis mutandis incorporated in this Act and the rules, orders and notifications issued under those sections were mutatis mutandis issued under the relevant sections as so incorporated in this Act." It may be relevant to mention here that section 7 of the Act has not been made applicable at all. 7. Shri S. K. Seth, learned counsel for the applicant/Revenue, has contended that it is true that section 7 of the Act has not been made applicable as such, but by implication section 7 of the Act, shall be deemed to be applicable. Section 7 of the Act reads as under : "Section 7 : Levy of purchase tax. - (1) Every dealer who in the course of his business purchases any goods specified in Schedule II - (i) from a registered dealer in circumstances in which no tax under sub-section (1) of section 6 is payable by that registered dealer on the sale price of such goods; or (ii) from any other person; shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase price of such goods, if after such purchase the goods are not sold either within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce but are - (a) sold or disposed of otherwise; or (b) used or consumed in the manufacture or processing of other goods or used or consumed otherwise; such tax shall be levied at the same rate at which tax under sub-section (1) of section 6 would have been levied on the sale of such goods within the State on the date of such purchase. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) but subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed, the tax under sub-section (1) payable by a registered dealer on the goods, other than tendu leaves, opium including raw opium and whole pulses, purchased by him for consumption or use as raw material or incidental goods in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in the mining of goods or in the generation or distribution of electricity any other form of power shall be charged at the concessional rate of 4 per cent : Provided that when the tax payable under sub-section (1) on the purchase of such raw material or incidental goods is at a rate lower than 4 per cent the tax payable under this sub-section be calculated at such lower rate or at such lower rate as may be notified by the State Government. (3) No tax under this section shall be levied in respect of any year on - (a) a dealer other than a dealer referred to in clause (d), not liable to pay tax under sub-section (1) of section 6 if the aggregate of purchase prices of all goods in that year does not exceed the limits specified in sub-section (5) of section 4; (b) a dealer holding a licence under section 13 in respect of raw materials and incidental goods used in that year in the manufacture of goods in respect of which he holds such licence; (c) a dealer in respect of the purchase price of paddy, unginned cotton as specified in part I of Schedule II and such other goods in the said Part as the State Government may from time to time, by notification, specify who has consumed or used them as raw materials for the manufacture of other goods and the goods so manufactured are sold is the State of Madhya Pradesh or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce; (d) any other dealer who has no turnover, if the aggregate of purchase prices of all the goods does not exceed twenty thousand rupees. (4) Every dealer who has no turnover and is liable to pay tax under sub-section (1) shall, for the purpose of sections 17, 18, 19, 22, 22-A and 26, be deemed to be a registered dealer." 8. (4) Every dealer who has no turnover and is liable to pay tax under sub-section (1) shall, for the purpose of sections 17, 18, 19, 22, 22-A and 26, be deemed to be a registered dealer." 8. Learned counsel for the applicant/Revenue has next contended that section 13 of the M.P. Entry Tax Act does not mention a machinery provision of the sales tax still such dealer shall be deemed to be a registered dealer for the purpose of sections 17, 18, 19, 22, 22-A and 26 and is under obligation to file returns under section 17 of the Act and can be assessed under section 18 of the Act. Therefore, for all purposes, he shall be deemed to be a registered dealer. Learned counsel emphasised that the words "deemed dealer" shall mean that though section 7 of the Act has not been specifically made applicable under section 13 of the Entry Tax Act, but still it shall be deemed to have been adopted by virtue of sub-section (4) of section 7 of the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant/Revenue has made a reference of sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Entry Tax Act that all those expressions, other than expression "goods" and "sale" which are used but not defined in this Act and that are defined in the Sales Tax Act, shall have the meanings assigned to them in that Act. Sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Entry Tax Act reads as under : "Section 2(2) : All those expressions, other than expression 'goods' and 'sale' which are used but are not defined in this Act and are defined in the Sales Tax Act shall have the meanings assigned to them in that Act." Learned counsel has invited our attention to section 2(m) of the Act that the definition of "registered dealer" means a dealer registered under this Act. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant/Revenue has submitted that the non-applicant/assessee shall be deemed to be a registered dealer and in support thereof, he has invited our attention to the case of Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad AIR 1995 SC 676 ; AIR 1995 SCW 453 . 10. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant/Revenue has submitted that the non-applicant/assessee shall be deemed to be a registered dealer and in support thereof, he has invited our attention to the case of Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad AIR 1995 SC 676 ; AIR 1995 SCW 453 . 10. As against this, Shri B. L. Nema, learned counsel for the non-applicant/assessee submitted that when the Legislature has not intended to apply section 7 of the Act, then by deeming fiction the provisions of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act cannot be made applicable to the M.P. Entry Tax Act. Learned counsel submitted that this cannot be adopted as it would be against the intention of the Legislature. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Sales Tax Act has been enacted by the Legislature under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and the Entry Tax Act has been enacted by the Legislature under entry 52 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Entry 52 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India reads as under : "SEVENTH SCHEDULE LIST II - STATE LIST Entry 52 : Taxes on the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein." Therefore, fundamentally, both these enactments have a different source and section 7 of the Act deals with the levy of purchase tax and that cannot be covered under the Entry Tax Act; therefore, the Legislature deliberately thought it proper not to apply section 7 to the provisions of the Entry Tax Act. It is further contended that the deeming provision should be construed in the context in which it is intended to be used and such deeming provision should not be extended or stretched beyond the limit. In support thereof, the learned counsel has invited our attention to a direct decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Union Medical Agency [1981] 47 STC 170. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. 12. We are inclined to agree with the contentions of Shri B. L. Nema, learned counsel for the non-applicant/assessee, as they are based on sound reasoning. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records. 12. We are inclined to agree with the contentions of Shri B. L. Nema, learned counsel for the non-applicant/assessee, as they are based on sound reasoning. It is true that the deeming provision should not be stretched to the extent which goes against the intended purpose of the enactment. Section 13 of the Entry Tax Act specifically provided that sections 3, 7-A, 17, 18, 19,.....shall be applicable mutatis mutandis in this Act. In fact, in this Entry Tax Act, some of the provisions of the Sales Tax Act has been made applicable and not all the provisions. It was further ordained that these provisions shall mutatis mutandis apply to the provisions of the Entry Tax Act. Therefore, it was rightly contended that only those provisions which have been made applicable should be applied and not which are not made applicable. The Legislature in their wisdom have deliberately omitted the reference of section 7 of the Act for the reason that section 7 deals with the levy of purchase tax and the purchase tax cannot be made applicable to the Entry Tax Act because the Entry Tax Act is covered under entry 52 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Entry 52 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India only deals with the taxes on the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein, whereas entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule deals with taxes on the sale or purchase of goods. Therefore, the Legislature knew full well the foundation of their source. Hence deliberately, they did not apply section 7 of the Act to the Entry Tax Act. 13. Shri S. K. Seth, learned counsel for the applicant/Revenue, has contended that because of sub-section (4) of section 7 of the Act, the word "deemed" has been used and by such deeming, the purchasing dealer has also been deemed to be a registered dealer. Therefore, such dealer also be considered to be a deemed dealer and as such all the machinery provisions of the Act shall be mutatis mutandis applicable. Therefore, such dealer also be considered to be a deemed dealer and as such all the machinery provisions of the Act shall be mutatis mutandis applicable. But the argument of the learned counsel is fallacious for the simple reason that the word "deemed" has to be considered in the context it is used and cannot be given extended meaning so as to become out of context. When the Legislature has not intended to induct section 7 of the Act applicable to the provisions of the Entry Tax Act then by such deeming provision, it cannot be expanded to include the expression "registered dealer" out of context and read in the Entry Tax Act; this will amount to violating the intention of the Legislature as well as the intended purposes of the enactment. It will militate against the source of both the enactments as one is under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and another is under entry 52 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The case cited by the learned counsel for the applicant/Revenue in Harish Tandon AIR 1995 SC 676 ; AIR 1995 SCW 453 , is also not applicable because it relates to the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. Their Lordships had an occasion to consider the provisions of the U.P. Urban Building Act that whether admission of son-in-law as partner in business amounts to joint tenant and inducting him in premises amounts to sub-letting or not. But that is not the situation here. As already mentioned above, the expression "deeming" cannot be intended in the present context to induct section 7 of the Act to the provisions of the Entry Tax Act when same was not intended by the Legislature as it deliberately did not refer section 7 to section 13 of the Entry Tax Act. In fact, the case cited by Shri B. L. Nema, learned counsel for the non-applicant/assessee, in Union Medical Agency [1981] 47 STC 170 (SC), is in line with the view which we have taken. In that case, the honourable Bhagwati, J., agreeing with the view of honourable Sen and honourable Venkataramiah, JJ., observed with reference to the Bombay Sales Tax Act : "........The question then would be : if the dealer is not registered under the Bombay Act, how to recover the tax from him ? In that case, the honourable Bhagwati, J., agreeing with the view of honourable Sen and honourable Venkataramiah, JJ., observed with reference to the Bombay Sales Tax Act : "........The question then would be : if the dealer is not registered under the Bombay Act, how to recover the tax from him ? The dealer not being registered under the Bombay Act, the machinery of the Bombay Act would not of itself apply for the recovery of tax from him. Section 4, sub-section (2), therefore enacts that every dealer who is liable to pay tax under sub-section (1) shall, for the purposes of sections 32 to 38 and 46 to 48 be deemed to be a registered dealer. Sections 32 to 38 and 46 to 48 are machinery sections and it is for the purpose of making the machinery of these sections applicable for recovery of the tax imposed on the dealer under sub-section (1) of section 4 that an artificial fiction is created deeming the dealer to be a registered dealer, that is, a dealer registered under section 22 of the Bombay Act. This legal fiction is created for a specific purpose and it is limited by the terms of sub-section (2) of section 4 and it cannot be projected in section 8(ii). Section 4 has, in fact, nothing to do with section 8(ii). They are distinct and independent provisions operating on totally different areas, and it is difficult to see how section 4 can be availed of for the purpose of interpreting the expression 'registered dealer' in section 8(ii)." Their Lordships have held that the artificial fiction of deeming dealer when it is not intended, should not be extended beyond the context, that is the situation here. Therefore, it is not possible to extend the deemed expression appearing in sub-section (4) of section 7 of the Act when section 13 of the Entry Tax Act has deliberately not made this section applicable to the Entry Tax Act. Hence the non-applicant/assessee cannot be deemed to be a registered dealer under the Entry Tax Act. Hence, this reference is answered against the Revenue. Reference answered in the affirmative.