S. P. KHARE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the demand of Entry tax by the letter dated 18-2-1998 (Annexure-F) by the respondent No. 1. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Government company. It is manufacturing iron and steel in its Plant at Bhilai. It is using high silica lime stone as fluxing material in blast furnace process. It is also using low silica lime stone in manufacturing steel by a new technique with the use of convertors. The two kinds of lime are brought by the petitioner within the local area of Bhilai. The petitioner was paying entry tax as per M. P. Sthaniya Kshetra-Me-Mal-Ke Parvesh-Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Entry-Tax Act), at the rate of 1% on high Silica lime stone. It was paying this tax at the rate of 0. 5% on low silica lime stone under the residuary entry. ( 3 ) BY notification dated 2-2-1994 (Annexure-A) issued under Section 4-A of the Act, entry tax on lime stone was raised to 10%. The petitioner started paying entry tax at the enhanced rate on high silica lime but continued to pay this tax at the rate of 0. 5% on low silica lime. The assessments of the petitioner to entry tax up to the year 1993-94 were completed on this basis. By letter dated 6-8-1997 the Commercial Tax Officer asked the petitioner to pay entry tax on low silica lime also at the rate of 10%. The petitioner by its reply dated 11-8-1997 pointed out that it is not liable to pay entry tax at the enhanced rate on low-silica lime. But by the impugned letter dated 18-2-1998 (Annexure-F) the petitioner has been asked to pay entry tax on low silica lime stone also treating it as lime stone from the year 1994-95 to 31-12-1997. The demand for the difference is Rs. 13,33,40,579/ -. ( 4 ) THE petitioner's case is that in the Commercial world there is a proper distinction between high silica lime stone and low silica lime stone and the two are recognised as distinct commodities with a distinct use. The departmental authorities have also recognised the distinction between the two. The demand for the difference is Rs. 13,33,40,579/ -. ( 4 ) THE petitioner's case is that in the Commercial world there is a proper distinction between high silica lime stone and low silica lime stone and the two are recognised as distinct commodities with a distinct use. The departmental authorities have also recognised the distinction between the two. Therefore, now they cannot claim entry-tax at the rate of 10% on low silica lime stone brought by the petitioner within the local area of Bhilai. The prayer is that this demand be quashed. ( 5 ) THE case of the respondents is that the words lime stone have been used in the notification in generic sense. There is only one category of lime stone. There are not two categories as contended by the petitioner. Low silica lime stone is also lime stone and is used in manufacturing iron and steel. It is also liable to entry-tax at the rate of 10%. The demand has been raised on the basis of the returns submitted by the petitioner regarding the quantity and the price of the low silica lime stone brought within the local area by the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for both the sides were heard. The argument of Shri Chaphekar, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, the distinction between the two categories of lime stone is real and substantial and it is recognised in the Commercial world and also by the taxing-authorities. That being so, the demand of the enhanced rate treating low silica lime stone as covered by the words "lime stone" in the notification is unjustified and illegal. The other argument is that the respondent No. 1 has not made fresh assessments for each year and without reassessment the demand is illegal and without jurisdiction. There should first be reassessment and then a demand could be raised. On the other hand it is contended by Shri Awasthy, the Dy. Government Advocate, that the taxing provision has used the words "lime stone" and in their natural meaning the two species of lime are covered therein. The reply to the second objection is that the rate of the tax has been revised on the admitted facts. On the other hand it is contended by Shri Awasthy, the Dy. Government Advocate, that the taxing provision has used the words "lime stone" and in their natural meaning the two species of lime are covered therein. The reply to the second objection is that the rate of the tax has been revised on the admitted facts. The figures and the data given in the returns of the petitioner have been used to determine the fresh demand and as such there was no need for fresh formal assessment. ( 7 ) POINT (A)A tax is imposed for public purpose for raising general revenue of the State. The words of a taxing statute must be construed in their natural sense. One should read fairly the language which has been used. Ordinarily the popular or common sense meaning has to be preferred than the technical or scientific meaning. The law-makers use the words in the sense which is understood by a man of ordinary prudence walking in the street. These words should not be given a strained, or artificial meaning. If the commodity sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law it must be taxed. ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales-Tax v. Modi Sugar Mills, AIR 1961 SC 1047 has formulated the principle thus:"in interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Nor can taxing statutes be interpreted on any presumptions or assumptions. The Court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. It must interpret a taxing statute in light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any assumed deficiency. " Again in Martand Dairy v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 1492 it has been observed: "taxation consideration may stem from administrative experience and other factors of life and not artistic visualisation or neat logic and so the literal, though pedestrian interpretation must prevail. " ( 9 ) AGAIN in Oswal Agro Millslimited v. C. C. E. , AIR 1993 SC 2288 it has been stated that there is neither intendment nor equity in a taxing statute. Nothing is implied. " ( 9 ) AGAIN in Oswal Agro Millslimited v. C. C. E. , AIR 1993 SC 2288 it has been stated that there is neither intendment nor equity in a taxing statute. Nothing is implied. Neither can Court insert nor can it delete anything but it should be interpreted and construed as per the words the legislature has chosen to employ in the Act or Rules. There is no room for assumption or presumptions. The object has to be gathered from the language used in the statute. ( 10 ) IN this case the words "lime stone" in their ordinary and natural connotation mean the lime stone of all the types. It is not restricted to high silica lime stone. It includes low silica lime stone also. The petitioner is using two kinds of lime stone - high silica for blast furnace and low silica in converters. The taxability does not depend upon the use which the petitioner is making of the two kinds of lime-stone. The taxing provision embraces all kinds of lime-stone and would naturally include low silica lime stone. It cannot be assumed or presumed that the intention was to tax high silica lime-stone only at the higher rate. There is doubt or ambiguity which should be resolved in favour of the assessee. The words used are capable of one and the only meaning. That is they include every kind of lime-stone. ( 11 ) IN Associated Cement Companies Limited v. State of M. P. , AIR 1996 Madh Pra 116, it has been held that companies manufacturing cement causing entry of lime stone in the local area are liable to pay tax at the rat e of 10%. As the petitioner in the present case is bringing low silica lime-stone in the local area it is also liable to tax at the same rate. It is well known that Cement companies use low silica lime-stone. ( 12 ) POINT (b)This point has been raised during the course of the arguments only. It has not been specifically set up in the petition. There is no plea that there could not be demand at the enhanced rate without fresh prior assessment at that rate. This plea raised during the arguments is only to be rejected. The respondents are not relying upon any new material. It has not been specifically set up in the petition. There is no plea that there could not be demand at the enhanced rate without fresh prior assessment at that rate. This plea raised during the arguments is only to be rejected. The respondents are not relying upon any new material. The figures and the information supplied by the petitioner in their returns are not being challenged. Therefore, it becomes a question of law only whether the low silica lime-stone is taxable at the rate of 10% or not. That has been answered in the affirmative in this judgment. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by directing the respondents to undertake the exercise of revised assessment and then make a demand. Arithmetical calculation alone is needed. The petitioner can point out to the respondents if there is any such error in the demand and that would be corrected. The respondents in their return have volunteered to do. Therefore, technicality should not triumph over the substance. The two decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner 28 STC 672 : ( AIR 1971 SC 2145 ) and 94 STC 422 : ( AIR 1994 SC 2393 ) do not apply to the present case. ( 13 ) THE petition is dismissed. Costs as incurred. Petition dismissed. .