JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - At the instance of the applicants/assessee (M/s. A. R. Enterprises Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam, in Misc. Civil Case No. 180 of 1989 and M/s. Ashok Drilling Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam, in Misc. Civil Case No. 181 of 1989), the Tribunal (Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior) has on applications registered as Ref. Nos. 46-V/88 and 47-V/88 stated the cases and referred the undernoted common questions of law arising out of the orders passed by the Tribunal in Second Appeal Case Nos. 384-V/87 and 378-V/87 on March 9, 1988 for our answer under section 44 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act") read with section 13 of the M.P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (for short, "the Entry Tax Act") : "(i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the activity of drilling of tube wells on labour basis comes within the definition of 'works contract' as contemplated under section 2(m) of the Entry Tax Act ? (ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that petrol, diesel and other machinery stores, not used directly in the drilling work, but used in the vehicles and machineries are exigible to entry tax under section 3(2) of the Entry Tax Act read with relevant notifications issued under section 3(2) of the said Act ?" 2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. The aforesaid applicants are doing drilling work for Public Health Engineering Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The period under consideration is April 1, 1983 to December 13, 1984. During this period the applicants were unregistered dealers under the Act. They undertook drilling of tube wells for Public Health Engineering Department. The applicants were assessed to entry tax by assessment order dated October 17, 1985 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Scrutiny Cell, Mandsaur in Assessment Case Nos. 40/1984 (entry tax) and 41/1984 (entry tax) respectively. The department supplied pipes, cement, etc., for the purposes of tube wells. Apart from these goods, the applicants also consumed petrol, diesel, etc., in the course of execution of the contract work. They contended that they were not contractors as defined under section 2(m) of the Entry Tax Act. This contention was rejected by the assessing officer. The department supplied pipes, cement, etc., for the purposes of tube wells. Apart from these goods, the applicants also consumed petrol, diesel, etc., in the course of execution of the contract work. They contended that they were not contractors as defined under section 2(m) of the Entry Tax Act. This contention was rejected by the assessing officer. The applicants were held liable to pay entry tax under section 3(2) of the Entry Tax Act. Accordingly on the value of the goods consumed by the applicants, entry tax was assessed in both the cases and penalties under section 17(3) of the Act were also imposed for non-submission of returns and for non-payment of entry tax. Copies of assessment orders dated October 17, 1986 are annexures "B/1" and "B/2". First appeals in both the cases registered as Nos. 2/1987 (entry tax) and 1/1987 (entry tax) were dismissed by order dated October 6, 1987 and October 5, 1987, respectively. Copies of orders are annexures "C/1" and "C/2". The applicants filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that as the applicants are liable to pay entry tax it was immaterial whether they were doing business or not and whether they were dealers or not. The Tribunal upheld the order of lower authorities and held that the applicants were liable to pay entry tax under section 3(2) of the Entry Tax Act read with Notification No. A-5-22-1982(8)-ST-V dated March 19, 1983 and Notification No. A-5-22-1982(9)-ST-V dated March 19, 1983. It was held that when any person was doing works contract entered Schedule II and Schedule III of goods of more than 50,000, that person was liable to entry tax under section 3(2) of the Entry Tax Act. Examining section 2(m), the Tribunal held that installation of immovable property also comes under the definition of "works contract". The Tribunal upheld the orders with regard to liability under the Entry Tax Act but set aside the imposition of penalties under section 17(3) of the Act on the ground that the applicants were unregistered dealers during the period under consideration. The Tribunal passed the order on March 9, 1988 (annexure "D"). Aggrieved, the applicants filed the aforesaid Applications Nos. 46-V/88 and 47-V/88. On those applications the Tribunal referred the aforesaid common questions of law. Although single question was proposed but for the sake of convenience the Tribunal bifurcated the same question into two. 3. The Tribunal passed the order on March 9, 1988 (annexure "D"). Aggrieved, the applicants filed the aforesaid Applications Nos. 46-V/88 and 47-V/88. On those applications the Tribunal referred the aforesaid common questions of law. Although single question was proposed but for the sake of convenience the Tribunal bifurcated the same question into two. 3. We have heard Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri C. R. Pancholiya, for the applicants/assessee and Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate, for the non-applicant/department, in both these cases. 4. Shri Chaphekar submitted that the Tribunal committed an error of law in concluding that the activity of drilling of tube wells on labour basis comes within the definition of "works contract" under section 2(m) of the Entry Tax Act. He also submitted that if question No. (i) is answered in favour of the applicants/assessee, it would not be necessary to answer question No. (ii) and question No. (ii) may be left unanswered for consideration, if occasion arises, in some other case. 5. Shri Mathur submitted that the activity is covered by the expression "works contract" as envisaged under section 2(m) of the Entry Tax Act. 6. The short question, therefore, is whether the activity of drilling of tube wells was or was not covered by the definition of "works contract" as defined under section 2(m) of the Entry Tax Act. 7. Section 2(m) of the M.P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976, as substituted with effect from May 6, 1982 vide Act No. 24 of 1982, provides as under : "(m) 'works contracts' means contracts relating to construction of works like buildings, dams and bridges and other immovable property, erection of factories, installation of machinery and fittings and installations to movable or immovable property in the execution whereof goods are consumed or used but not sold." 8. It is thus clear that the expression "works contracts" means contracts relating to construction of works like buildings, dams and bridges as also other immovable property, erection of factories, installation of machinery and fittings and installations to movable or immovable property in the execution whereof goods are consumed or used but not sold. The essence of this provision is "construction of works". Admittedly the applicants were doing drilling of the tube wells on labour basis. The essence of this provision is "construction of works". Admittedly the applicants were doing drilling of the tube wells on labour basis. The Tribunal elected to take this activity as covered under section 2(m) on the assumption that it was a case of installation of immovable property. Installation of immovable property is not specifically covered under the aforesaid provision. What is envisaged is installation of machinery and fittings and installations to movable or immovable property. The expression is "to" and not "of". The question submitted is whether activity of drilling of tube wells on labour basis comes within the definition or not ? 9. It is in the area of legislative ambiguities, yet not receding, that courts have to fill gaps, clear doubts and mitigate hardships. In the words of Judge learned Hand, spoken in Cabell v. Markhan (1945) 148 F 2 d 737, 735, we get enough light to locate correct path : "It is one of surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence......to remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning." 10. In [1983] 1 SCR 393 (Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India), it is held as under : "The dominant purpose in construing a statute is to ascertain the intention of Parliament. One of the well recognised canons of construction is that the Legislature speaks its mind by use of correct expression and unless there is any ambiguity in the language of the provision, the court should adopt literal construction if it does not lead to an absurdity." 11. If the intention of the Legislature would have been to tax the activity of drilling of tube wells, this would have been specifically included in the aforesaid definition contained in section 2(m). It relates to the activity of construction am installation. 12. It is not seriously contended before us by the non-applicant that activity of drilling of tube wells can be construed as activity of construction or installation 13. In view of the aforesaid position we are satisfied that the activity ii question does not fall within the definition of "works contracts" as contemplate under section 2(m) of the Entry Tax Act. It is not seriously contended before us by the non-applicant that activity of drilling of tube wells can be construed as activity of construction or installation 13. In view of the aforesaid position we are satisfied that the activity ii question does not fall within the definition of "works contracts" as contemplate under section 2(m) of the Entry Tax Act. The dominant object of the contract entered into with the Public Health Engineering Department being to drill the tube wells, it cannot be said that it was within the purview of works contract ? 14. In the result, we answer question No. (i) in the negative, i.e., in favour of the applicants/assessee and against the non-applicant/department. 15. In view of the aforesaid answer, we do not answer question No. (ii) as prayed by the counsel for the applicants at whose instance these reference are forwarded to this Court. The applicants can legally elect not to press particular question referred at their instance. In these circumstances, we do not answer question No. (ii) and leave it open. 16. These reference applications are thus answered in terms indicated above but without any order as to costs. 17. Counsel fee for each side in each case is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. 18. Transmit a copy of this order to the Tribunal in accordance with the law. 19. Retain this order in the records of Misc. Civil Case No. 180 of 1989 and place its copy in the records of Misc. Civil Case No. 181 of 1989 for ready reference. Reference answered accordingly.