Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. At the instance of the assessee, the question referred to us, which arises out of the assessment for the asst. yr. 1975-76, in respect of the assessment of the wealth of State Bank of Travancore Employee's Union is, as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee, which is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act is liable to wealth-tax in the status of 'individual' under the WT Act having regard to the relevant provisions of the State statute including the Indian Trade Unions Act and the authorities and decisions considered by it. 2. The charge to wealth-tax is created under s. 3 of the WT Act, 1957, in respect of the net wealth of "every individual, HUF and Company". The Tribunal has held that the word 'individual' is capable of taking within its scope an artificial juristic entity like a trade union, which on incorporation under the Trade Unions Act becomes a juristic person capable of entering into the contracts. That is also the view taken by three other High Courts in the cases of Kerala Finance Corpn. vs. WTO 1972 (82) ITR 477 (Ker) (FB) : TC 65R.513, Assam Financial Corpn vs. CWT and Indian Jute Mills Association vs. CWT. All these judgments referred to and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sodra Devi, a decision rendered under s. 16(3) of the IT Act, 1922. Sec. 169(3) of the 1922 Act, inter alia, provided that in computing the total income of any individual for the purpose of assessment, there shall be included the income of the wife or minor child to the extent such income was derived in the manner set out in the two sub-clauses of s. 16(3)(a) of the Act. It was in the context of the words found in that s. 16(3) of the 1922 Act, the Court observed that while the word assessee is wide enough to cover not only an "individual", but also an HUF, company and local authority and every firm and other AOP or the partners of the firm or the members of the association individually, the word "individual" is narrower in its connotation being one of the units for the purposes of taxation than the word "assessee". The Court noted that the word "individual" had not been defined in the IT Act, 1922 and that there was authority for the proposition that the word "individual" does not mean only a human being, but is wide enough to include group of persons forming an unit. The Court observed that it had been held that the word "individual" includes a corporation created by a statute, e.g. a university or a bar council, or the trustees of a baronetcy trust incorporated by a Baronetcy Act. After having made these observations, the Court proceeded to hold that the word "individual" in s. 16(3) of the IT Act, 1922 referred only to an individual capable of having a wife or minor child or both, and that would necessarily exclude from its purview a group of persons forming a unit or a corporation created by a statute and is confined only to human beings who in the context would be comprised within that category. 3. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, referred to the case of Sodra Devi (supra), in the case of Banarsi Dass vs. WTO. That decision was referred to for the purposes of showing that the word "individual" was perpetrated by the apex Court, as including a group of persons forming a unit. 4. The context in which the word "individual" occurs provides the clue for ascertaining the meaning to be assigned to that term in a statute. No single definition can be adopted or applied in all context, and to all statutes. The fact that the word "individual" in some circumstances may be wide enough to include an artificial juristic entity like a corporation created by a statute does not lead to the conclusion that the word "individual" in s. 3(1) of the WT Act includes all juristic persons. One must look to the statute as a whole, its object and purpose and the relevant words used in the relevant provisions and the context for ascertaining the true scope and effect of that term. 5. The legislative history of the provision is also an useful guide for ascertaining the legislative intention in using the words found in a statute. One must look to the statute as a whole, its object and purpose and the relevant words used in the relevant provisions and the context for ascertaining the true scope and effect of that term. 5. The legislative history of the provision is also an useful guide for ascertaining the legislative intention in using the words found in a statute. We will presently refer to the changes in the definition of the word "company" for the purpose of wealth-tax as that is of some significance in ascertaining the true scope of the word "individual" used in s. 3(1) of the WT Act. 6. Charge of wealth-tax is on the net wealth of three classes of persons., viz., individuals, HUF and companies. In contrast to "individual" and "HUF", a "company" is an artificial juristic entity which takes birth on the registration of the company in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, if the word "company" is confined in its application to companies registered under the Companies Act, as it was, when the Act was first enacted. "Company is defined in s. 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 and includes foreign company within the meaning of s. 591 of the Act. Sec. 2(h) of the Act initially defined "company" as follows :" a company as defined in s. 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) and includes a foreign company within the meaning of s. 591 of that Act ". The terms "individual" and "HUF" in s. 3 of the Act did not, therefore, encompass could not take within those expressions "companies" registered under the Companies Act. 7. The definition "company" was substituted by the Finance Act, 1958. That definition reads as under :" a 'company' means a company as defined in s. 3 of the Companies Act (1 of 1956) and includes : "(i) a company within the meaning of any law in force in the State of Jammu and Kashmir relating to companies; (ii) a company incorporated outside India which has a place of business in India" . By the Finance Act, 1967, an amendment was effected to the definition of "company". That amendment was to the following effect. "The Finance Act, 1967, added cl. By the Finance Act, 1967, an amendment was effected to the definition of "company". That amendment was to the following effect. "The Finance Act, 1967, added cl. (iia) relating to statutory corporation, which reads as follows :" (iia) a Corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, which is declared by the Central Government, by general or special order, to be a company for the purposes of this Act ". 8. The definition of "company" was once again substituted by the Finance Act, 1975 w.e.f. 1st April, 1975. That definition is as under : "Company" means a company formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), and includes -" (i) a company formed and registered under any law relating to companies formerly in force in any part of India; (ii) a corporation established by or under a Central, State or Provincial Act; (iii) any institution, association or body, whether incorporated or not and whether Indian or non-Indian, which the Board may, having regard to the nature and objects of such institution, association or body, declare by general or special order to be a company :Provided that such institution, association or body shall be deemed to be a company only for such assessment year or assessment years (whether commencing before the 1st day of April, 1975 or on or after that date) as may be specified in the declaration; (iv) any body corporate incorporated by or under the laws of a country outside India. "9. That definition was again amended by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987. The 'company' is now defined in the WT Act as having the meaning assigned to it in cl. (17) of s. 2 of the IT Act. 10. Thus, while the categories of persons subjected to wealth-tax remained the same in s. 3 of the Act, the definition of the word "company", one of the three categories of persons liable for wealth-tax has been greatly expanded. (17) of s. 2 of the IT Act. 10. Thus, while the categories of persons subjected to wealth-tax remained the same in s. 3 of the Act, the definition of the word "company", one of the three categories of persons liable for wealth-tax has been greatly expanded. Initially it was confined to companies registered under the Companies Act, but, later, extended to companies registered under the law in force of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and to those incorporated outside India, but, having a place in India, later to companies under the law in force in the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Goa, Daman, Diu and Pondicherry and to associations in those territories which are declared by the Board to be a company for the purposes of the Act. In 1967, the scope of the definition was further enlarged by including corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act which is declared by the Central Government to be the company for the purposes of the Act. In 1975, it was further enlarged to include all statutory corporations, foreign corporations and institutions, associations or bodies, incorporated or not, declared by the Board to be a company. 11. From 1975 to 1987, the definition of "company" included companies registered under company law in force in any part in India, corporations established under a Central, State or Provincial Act, institutions, associations or bodies, whether incorporated or not, and whether Indian or non-Indian, which the Board may, having regard to their nature and objects, declare by general or special order to be a company and any body corporate incorporated by or under the laws of a country outside India. 12. The three categories of assessees mentioned in s. 3 of the Act are clearly and mutually exclusive. A company cannot be regarded as an individual, nor can an individual be regarded as a company, and neither of the two can be regarded as an HUF. If the person sought to be taxed falls within the definition of "company", the person can only be taxed as a company and not by treating that person as an individual or HUF. The categories mentioned in s. 3 of the Act clearly indicate the legislative intention to separately specify natural and artificial juristic entities. If the person sought to be taxed falls within the definition of "company", the person can only be taxed as a company and not by treating that person as an individual or HUF. The categories mentioned in s. 3 of the Act clearly indicate the legislative intention to separately specify natural and artificial juristic entities. The term "individual" has been used to refer to natural persons, while the word "company" has been used to refer to artificial juristic persons. 13. If, as contended by the Revenue, the intention of Parliament was always to regard all juristic entities whose existence in law is traceable to their incorporation under a statute are as covered by the word "individual", the amendments effected to the definition of the word "company" would become inexplicable and the futile exercise in redundancy and no such intention can be attributed to Parliament when it brought about those changes in the definition of the word "company". 14. It is settled proposition that before in the construction of charging sections in taxing statute before taxing any person, it must be shown that the person sought to be taxed falls within the ambit of the charging section by clear words used in the section, and that none can be taxed merely by implication. That principle has been reiterated by the apex Court in the case of CWT vs. Ellis Bridge Gymkhana Etc, Etc. The Court inter alia, held that :" .... A charging section has to be construed strictly, if a person has not been brought within the ambit of entities. An HUF, which consists of natural persons has been specifically mentioned as it cannot be characterised either as an "individual" or as a "company". That the artificial juristic entities which trace their legal existence to their incorporation under a statute are not included and were never meant included in the word "individual" used in that section is evident from the legislative history of the definition of "company". Parliament being of the view that apart from the company registered under the Companies Act, no other incorporated juristic entity could be subjected to wealth-tax, the definition of "company" was enlarged from time to time to take within its fold other juristic entities, besides the companies registered under the Companies Act. Parliament being of the view that apart from the company registered under the Companies Act, no other incorporated juristic entity could be subjected to wealth-tax, the definition of "company" was enlarged from time to time to take within its fold other juristic entities, besides the companies registered under the Companies Act. By the Finance Act of 1967, even the corporations established by a Central, State or Provincial Act was not to be treated as a company, but only if the Government declared it to be such by general or special order. By the amendments effected in 1975, such corporations were, even without the aid of a declaration by the Government, treated as companies. Even institution, associations or bodies, incorporated or not, could be brought into the fold of companies, if they were declared as such by the Board, by a general or special order.Strictly, if a person has not been brought within the ambit of the charging section by clear words he cannot be taxed at all". The Court rejected in that case, the contention of the Revenue that unincorporated bodies could be subjected to wealth-tax by treating them as falling within the scope of the term "individual" used in s. 3 of the Act. 15. The case of incorporated bodies cannot be any worse than unincorporated bodies. Incorporated bodies can only be taxed under the WT Act, if they fall within the definition of the word "company" and not otherwise. The term "individual" as it is used in the section, distinct from the artificial incorporated juristic entities and it is only on account of that fact that Parliament consider it necessary to amend the definition of the word "company" from time to time and expand its coverage with a view to bring in incorporated legal entities into the fold of wealth-tax for the purposes of taxation. 16. We may also notice here the fact that, though s. 3 of the Act in so far as it refers to individuals, HUF and company remains in the same form as it was, when enacted, the levy of wealth tax on companies was discontinued by the Finance Act of 1960 provided that notwithstanding what is contained in the wealth-tax, no tax shall be charged in respect of a wealth of a company for any financial year commencing after 1st April, 1960. By s. 40 of the Finance Act, 1973, the levy of wealth-tax on companies was revived for and from the asst. yr. 1984-85, that was limited to only closely held companies. By Finance No. 2, Act 1991, s. 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 was omitted w.e.f. 1st April, 1993. 17. The position as of now, therefore, is that so far as companies are concerned. Sec. 3 of the WT Act, has to be read along with s. 13 of the Finance Act, 1960, and so read, there is no levy of wealth tax on companies. 18. The view of the Tribunal in this case that a trade union, though a body corporate on its registration under Trade Union Act, can nevertheless be regarded as an "individual" is plainly erroneous. We must, with the greatest respect, express our inability, in the light of the foregoing decision, to agree with the view taken by the High Courts of Kerala, Assam and Calcutta. All of whom have, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sodra Devi (supra), held that incorporated bodies which are artificial juristic persons are included in the word "individual" in s. 3(1) of the Act. The context in which that word is used, the other terms used in the statute, the strict rules of constructions which need to be applied to charging sections and the legislative history of the definition of "company" in that statute clearly indicate that the intention of Parliament was to limit the application of the word "individual" to natural persons, and that incorporated bodies, which were artificial legal entities were not meant to be covered by that term "individual" in s. 3 of the Act. 19. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us against the Revenue, in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee shall be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 1, 000.