JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - These miscellaneous civil cases are heard as connected matters and are being disposed of by this common order. To tax or not to tax is the question. 2. Factual matrix lies in a narrow compass. (i) Misc. Civil Case No. 179 of 1989 : The tribunal (Board of Revenue) stated the case and referred the undernoted question of law under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Sales Tax Act") read with section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (for short, "the Act") arising out of the order dated April 28, 1988, passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 156-V/87 on application registered as Reference No. 73-V/88 for our opinion : "Whether, under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was right in holding that 'plant and machinery' are not incidental goods as defined under section 2(bb) of the Entry Tax Act and, as such, they are not liable to entry tax under section 3(1)(b) of the Entry Tax Act ?" 3. The non-applicant/assessee is a manufacturer of oil and oil-cake. The Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ujjain, assessed the dealer to entry tax under the Act for the calendar year 1983 by order dated August 13, 1985. The dealer had shown total purchases of Rs. 8,15,03,318. Apart from this the dealer also maintained a separate account of capital goods showing purchases of plant and machinery worth Rs. 10,26,230 which was not included in the purchases for the purpose of entry tax. This amount of these goods was included by the assessing officer in the total purchases and subjected to entry tax under the Act. The purchase price of plant and machinery was assessed to entry tax at 1 per cent (annexure "B"). The first appeal against the order was rejected by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax on the ground that these goods, as particularised above, are liable to be categorised as incidental goods (annexure "C). In second appeal the Tribunal held that the plant and machinery are fixed assets of the dealer and such goods in commercial and industrial terms are called capital goods. The Tribunal concluded that such goods are not incidental to any other thing. In second appeal the Tribunal held that the plant and machinery are fixed assets of the dealer and such goods in commercial and industrial terms are called capital goods. The Tribunal concluded that such goods are not incidental to any other thing. The appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to assessing officer for giving relief to the assessee (annexure "D"). Aggrieved, the applicant filed the application for reference of the question. This is how the question is referred for our answer. (ii) Misc. Civil Case No. 120 of 1990 : The Tribunal (Board of Revenue) stated the case and referred the undernoted question of law under section 44(1) of the Sales Tax Act read with section 13 of the Act arising out of the order dated July 7, 1988, passed by the Tribunal in second appeal No. 310-V/87 on application registered as Reference Appeal No. 83-V/88 for our opinion : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that laboratory equipment, water treatment plant and waste water pollution equipment purchased by the assessee are not incidental goods, as defined in clause (bb) of section 2 of the Entry Tax Act, 1976 and as such they are not liable to entry tax ?" 4. The non-applicant/assessee is a registered dealer and is a manufacturer of starch, liquid glucose and maize oil. The original manufacturing unit manufacturers starch and gluten from maize. For this unit, the main raw material in maize. With effect from 1982 two new units, namely, dextrose division in which dextrose is manufactured from starch and solvent division in which maize oil and khali are produced out of gluten are added. The two new units are granted eligibility certificate under the Act. For the assessment period January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1984, assessment order under the Act was passed on December 29, 1986. During this period the non-applicant purchased plant and machinery worth Rs. 7,52,667 including laboratory equipments, water treatment plant and waste water pollution equipments. These goods were assessed under the Act at 1 per cent by the Assessing Officer (annexure "B"). First appeal was rejected by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax on August 17, 1987 (annexure "C"). The second appeal was allowed by the Tribunal. 7,52,667 including laboratory equipments, water treatment plant and waste water pollution equipments. These goods were assessed under the Act at 1 per cent by the Assessing Officer (annexure "B"). First appeal was rejected by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax on August 17, 1987 (annexure "C"). The second appeal was allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the aforesaid goods, taxed, are not incidental goods in terms of section 2(bb) of the Act as the aforesaid goods are plant and machinery (annexure "D"). Aggrieved, the applicant then submitted an application on which the Tribunal referred the question for our answer. 5. We have heard Shri Surjeet Singh, learned Government Advocate for the applicant/revenue in both these cases. In Misc. Civil case No. 179 of 1989, we have heard Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned senior counsel with Shri R. Sodani, for the non-applicant/assessee. In connected Misc. Civil Case No. 120 of 1990, we have heard Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned senior counsel with Shri S. S. Samvatsar, for the non-applicant/assessee. 6. The Government Advocate has placed reliance on order passed in (1996) 22 Cur TJ 116 (Union carbide India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax), order dated September 13, 1995 rendered in Misc. Civil Case No. 613 of 1986 [Straw Products Ltd., Bhopal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. [1977] 105 STC 391 (MP)] and order dated August 13, 1996, passed in Misc. Civil Case No. 539 of 1984 - Madhya Pradesh high Court (Hindustan Electro-Graphites Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax). 7. The counsel for the non-applicant submitted that the order passed in case of Union Carbide India Ltd. (1996) 22 Cur TJ 116 contains the reference to order dated September 13, 1995, passed in case of Straw Products ltd. [1997] 105 STC 391 (MP) and is about the date, i.e., May 6, 1982 when the definition of incidental goods was incorporated in the Act and does not decide as to what is meant by "incidental goods". He further submits that the question No. 1 as regards non-exigibility during the period May 1, 1976 to August 31, 1976 was answered in favour of the assessee in Misc. Civil Case No. 613 of 1986 [Straw Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1997] 105 STC 391]. He also submitted that Misc. He further submits that the question No. 1 as regards non-exigibility during the period May 1, 1976 to August 31, 1976 was answered in favour of the assessee in Misc. Civil Case No. 613 of 1986 [Straw Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1997] 105 STC 391]. He also submitted that Misc. Civil Case No. 539 of 1984 (Hindustan Electro-Graphites Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax), presented under section 44(2) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 by the assessee of the case, was rejected on the assumption that question is answered against the assessee in (1981) 14 VKN 21 (Chandrabhan Brijmohan and Co. v. D. K. Verma, Additional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur). According to him, Chandrabhan's case (1981) 14 VKN 21 (MP) dealt with question of consumption and use of raw material and there question of "incidental goods" did not fall for consideration and as such was not answered. The counsel, thus, contended that the aforesaid authorities are not attracted and are not helpful in deciding the controversy on hand. 8. In relation to octroi duty, the apex Court in [1990] 77 STC 17; AIR 1990 SC 47 (HMM Ltd. v. Administrator, Bangalore City Corporation, Bangalore) held as under : "Held, the manufacturer was entitled to refund of octroi. Putting the powder from the drums into the bottles for the purpose of exporting or taking these out of the city would neither be use nor consumption of the Horlicks powder attracting the levy of octroi. Octroi could not be levied or collected in respect of goods which are not used or consumed or sold within the municipal limits. So the octroi collected became collection without the authority of law. The Municipal Corporation is a statutory authority. The Municipal Corporation, therefore, could not retain octroi. There was no question of undue enrichment also." 9. Here the question, pure and simple, is not about the date of incorporation of the provision, i.e., May 6, 1982, nor about the meaning of the expression use of consumption but is about the category of goods, i.e., whether the goods in question can be classed as incidental goods ? And if so, then incidental to which goods and then what would be the main goods ? 10. We have read the order. And if so, then incidental to which goods and then what would be the main goods ? 10. We have read the order. The Tribunal held as under : "The commencement of business is preceded by the installation of plant and machinery and, therefore, installation of plant and machinery or purchase of plant and machinery are not incidental to the business of manufacturing. The normal procedure of a manufacturing business is that plant and machinery are installed for the purpose of manufacturing and then only the business of manufacture can commence. 'Incidental goods', by its very nature, must take the place of a child, while plant and machinery must take the place of the parents. Inclusion of plant and machinery within the meaning of incidental goods would, therefore, be something like a child without parents, the condition of which cannot exist in practical life. All other goods which are neither raw material nor packing material nor plant and machinery but which are necessary for running the business of manufacture will be covered by the definition by 'incidental goods.' The lower authorities are, therefore, not justified in including plant and machinery in 'incidental goods' and thereby levying entry tax on the purchase price." 11. We proceed to consider the question in both these cases. 12. Section 3(1) clarifies " incidence of taxation" under the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (for short, "the Act"). According to sub-section (b), there shall be levied an entry tax on entry of goods, as specified in Schedule III, such as raw material or incidental goods or as packing material for consumption or use. The questions, evidently free from conundrum, are whether or not plant/machinery or laboratory equipment, water treatment plant and waste water pollution equipment, indisputably categorised as plant/machinery, are "incidental goods" in terms of section 2(bb) of the Act, inserted by M.P. Act. No. 24 of 1982, effective from May 6, 1982, and lather deleted by M.P. Act No. 11 of 1995, effective from April 1, 1995 and are or are not, thus, exigible to tax in terms of sections 2(b) and 3(1)(b) of Act ? 13. Section 3(1)(b) of the Act provides as under : " 3. Incidence of taxation. - (1) There shall be leved an entry tax - (a).......... 13. Section 3(1)(b) of the Act provides as under : " 3. Incidence of taxation. - (1) There shall be leved an entry tax - (a).......... (b) on the entry in the course of business of goods specified in Schedule III, into each local area for consumption or use of such goods as raw material or incidental goods or as packing material or in the execution of works contracts but not for sale therein, and such tax shall be paid by every dealer liable to tax under the Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam who has effected entry of such goods." 14. Section 2(b) of the Act contains the definition of "entry tax" as under : "(b) 'entry tax' means a tax on entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein levied and payable in accordance with the provisions of this Act and includes composition money payable under section 7-A." 15. Section 2(bb) of the Act operative from May 6, 1982 till March 31, 1995, defined "incidental goods" as under : "(bb) 'incidental goods' means goods other than raw material and packing material for use by a dealer in the manufacture or processing of goods or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power." 16. In our view, real meaning is not far to seek. For exigibility, it is required to be shown whether the goods, excepting raw material and packing material, were brought in the local area for use by the dealer "for" the manufacture or "for" mining or "for" the generation or distribution ? The key to open the lock and unknot the problem is the meaningful use of the word "in" at all the places in the definition rather than "for" before the words "the manufacture" or "mining" or "the generation or distribution". By use of the word "in" and omission of the word "for", the Legislature in its wisdom desired to emphasis that incidental goods, exposed to entry tax, would cover only those goods capable of being used "in" the specified activities and not "for" such activities. In other words, goods used for such activities are immune from imposition of tax whereas goods used in such activities are exigible as incidental goods. Same is the position as regards processing. 17. In other words, goods used for such activities are immune from imposition of tax whereas goods used in such activities are exigible as incidental goods. Same is the position as regards processing. 17. The dictionary meaning of the word "in" is within, inside of, during, by, through, by means of and of the word "for" is in support of, because of, as regards, concerning, etc. Likewise, the dictionary meaning of the word "incidence" is event, extent, range, etc., and of the word "incidental" is accidental, casual, unimportant. This makes it clear that casual, not usual, and unimportant, not important, goods are taxable, others are not. This is the inbred answer to the question like "to tax or not to tax" with which we began this order as prolegomenon. 18. It is not contended here that plant/machinery and laboratory equipment, water treatment plant or waste water pollution equipment, classed as plant/machinery, installed or to be installed for the specified activity or activities are accidental or casual or unimportant goods. In fact, it is beyond the pale of controversy that these goods are the main goods for the manufacture, etc., and not incidental goods for use in the manufacture, etc. This then tears up the tenebrosity, if any. 19. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) 457 US 731, Justice Powell, delivering the opinion of the court, quoted the recommendation of Alexander Butterfield, While House aid, about Fitzgerald, a top - notch cost-expert, that "we should let him bleed, for a while at least". Our surge of an urge to be just ever runs to destroy Butterfield's view and survives to see that no one bleeds unmeritedly even for ephemeral duration. Justice to all, and injustice to none, is our high aim. In that exercise, it falls on us to say between assessee and assessor as to who is right and who is wrong. This is the prime object of such references. The court, thus does not assibilate but performs the duty of bestowing assiduity on the issues presented and projected before it. Article 265 of the Constitution of India begins with mighty "no" and mandates that "No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law". And law must be without flaw. So taxation is not to operate as vexation and the dealer must know as to how to "deal". 20. Article 265 of the Constitution of India begins with mighty "no" and mandates that "No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law". And law must be without flaw. So taxation is not to operate as vexation and the dealer must know as to how to "deal". 20. It is in the area of legislative ambiguities, yet not receding, that courts have to fill gaps, clear doubts and mitigate hardship. In the words of Judge learned Hand, spoken in Cabell v. Markhan (1945) 148 F 2d 737, 739, 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." 21. According to section 11 of the Act, the burden of proof is on the dealer. This provision is held to be not ultra vires, in 1984 MPLJ 585 (Ranomal Ramesh Kumar, Gwalior v. State of M.P.). The dealer has shown that the goods are not incidental ones, as is clear from the labels, and has, thus, discharged the burden. The Tribunal, in our view, took the correct view and committed no wrong in holding that goods in question are not incidental goods. The applicant-revenue is unable to point out any perversity, illegality, infirmity or invalidity in the conclusion. Even in M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 or Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, or Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, the position is made clear and clearer by the employment of the word "in" and avoidance of the word "for". That is obviously the material difference between the goods used for and the goods used in the manufacture, etc. The former goods are evidently main goods whereas the latter goods are incidental goods. That is the view of the Tribunal too. 22. The expression "raw material" is clarified in [1990] 77 STC 282 (SC); AIR 1990 SC 196 (Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.). No decision is, however, cited as regards the meaning of "incidental goods". It is, thus, a question of appreciation and interpretation of section 2(bb) of the Act as was applicable at the relevant time. 23. No decision is, however, cited as regards the meaning of "incidental goods". It is, thus, a question of appreciation and interpretation of section 2(bb) of the Act as was applicable at the relevant time. 23. Salmond stated that "by interpretation or construction is meant the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of legislation through the medium of authoritative form in which it is expressed". 24. Intention is to be gathered from the words used or purpose sought to be achieved. The meaning of the expression "intention of the Legislature" is explained in another form by Lord Watson in an oft quoted passage where he called it a "slippery phrase" and said "in a court of law or equity, what the Legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from that which it has chosen to enact, either in express words or by reasonable and necessary implication". The purpose and object of the provision has to be kept in mind as stated in AIR 1964 SC 669 (State of Punjab v. Okara Grain Buyers Syndicate Ltd.). 25. Applying the aforesaid test, we find that the legislature intended to subject the goods, which are incidental in nature, to entry tax under the Act. In other words, all goods are not so subjected. The goods must be incidental to the main goods. Plant and machinery are the goods employed for manufacture of the commodity and not used in the manufacture of the commodity. It is, thus, clear that the goods such as plant and machinery, employed for manufacture are the main goods and goods which are used in the manufacture are appropriately the incidental goods. In the instant cases, the goods like plant and machinery are main goods for manufacture, etc., and cannot be classed as incidental goods and as such, the Tribunal reached the correct conclusion and committed no error of law. 26. In this view of the matter, we answer the question in both the cases in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the non-applicant/assessee and against the applicant/revenue. 27. These Misc. Civil Cases are, thus, disposed of with answer as above, but without any orders as to costs. 28. Record of the Tribunal be returned immediately 29. Retain this order in Misc. Civil Case No. 179 of 1989 and place its copy in connected Misc. 27. These Misc. Civil Cases are, thus, disposed of with answer as above, but without any orders as to costs. 28. Record of the Tribunal be returned immediately 29. Retain this order in Misc. Civil Case No. 179 of 1989 and place its copy in connected Misc. Civil Case No. 120 of 1990 for ready reference. Application disposed of accordingly.