Judgment :- Jayasimha Babu, J. The counsel submitted that the question now raised, is one which arises under the Finance Act, 1983 'Jeep' is not defined in any of the fiscal Acts. No other legislation containing a definition of the term has been brought to our notice. In the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Tenth edition, 'jeep' is defined thus : "Jeep trademark; a small sturdy motor vehicle with four-wheel drive, especially one used by the army. - Origin Second World war orig. from the initials GP, standing for general purpose, influence by Eugene the 'jeep', a creature in the Popeye comic strip." 'Jeep' was defined even in the earlier editions of the Oxford Dictionary as 'motor vehicle'. That is the manner in which this Court construed it in the case of E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. v. CIT, wherein this Court reaffirmed its earlier decision in the case of Crompton Engg. Co. (Madras) Ltd. v. CIT, and held that a jeep constitutes a motor car for the purpose of section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That provision limited the allowable expenditure on the items specified in section 37(3B)(ii) with regard to running and maintenance of aircraft and motor cars. The Kerala High Court in the case of CAIT v. Good Hope Plantation, has taken a similar view.The counsel, however, contended that the term 'motor vehicle' is wider than the term 'motor car' and the Legislature not having used the wider term 'motor car' should be given a narrow meaning. The learned counsel, in this context, referred to the manner in which different types of motor vehicles have been enumerated in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, which, in one of its Schedules, in item No. 35, enumerates different types of motor vehicles, such as cars, cabs, buses, vans, jeeps, lorries, etc. The learned counsel also invited our attention to the observation of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd., particularly, the observations at page 317, that the Court in interpreting a fiscal statute cannot proceed to make good deficiencies, if there be any, and the Court must interpret the statute as it stands and in the case of doubt in a manner favourable to the taxpayer. The learned counsel also contended that while interpreting the provision, the Court must ascertain the intent of the Legislature and for doing so, the speech made by the Finance Minister in Parliament, while introducing the Bill, is relevant. In support of that proposition, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Surana Steels (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT. In that case, the Court referred to the argument made before it that the speech of the Finance Minister moving the Bill can be referred to as an external aid to construction. The judgment, however, does not indicate that the argument was accepted by the Court. The Court, at page 786, observed that after ascertaining the object of the legislation all that the Court was required to do was to read the provisions plainly and apply the rules of interpretation, if any, ambiguity survives.The term 'motor car' is a term of every day usage. However, it cannot be said to bear a precise meaning, though the broad parameters are known. The term applies necessarily to a vehicle, which is motorised, that is, one which moves with the aid of power, whether mechanical or electrical. The purpose for which the vehicle may be used is only broadly indicated by the term 'car' which indicates a compartment, which is to be carried along or moved by the mechanism, which is the motor forming part of the vehicle. The term 'car' again, is a word, which carries widely varying meanings. That word is used with reference to the railway compartment, as a railcar in the United States. Car is used primarily with reference to vehicles, which are used for carrying passengers. However, when a large vehicle carrying a large number of passengers is intended to be referred to, the word 'car' is not used. The popular term used is a 'bus', though the purpose served by these two is very similar. The fact that the vehicle is primarily used for carrying people does not imply that it is not capable of carrying goods. It certainly is capable of carrying luggage, though to a limited extent. The word 'jeep' is not a description of any special vehicle, as indicated in the dictionary definition. It is a general purpose vehicle, the word itself being merely two initials, 'GP', standing for 'general purpose'. It certainly is capable of carrying luggage, though to a limited extent. The word 'jeep' is not a description of any special vehicle, as indicated in the dictionary definition. It is a general purpose vehicle, the word itself being merely two initials, 'GP', standing for 'general purpose'. It is used primarily with reference to vehicles, which have a four wheel drive, which makes it capable of being used even on rough terrain and for use on locations, where vehicles with a two wheel derive cannot be used. When the term 'motor car' is used in a statute, the meaning to be assigned to it would depend upon the context in which it is used and purpose of the statute, as also the scheme of a particular provision. Whereas, in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, to which the counsel referred, general classes of motor vehicles are set out, and 'jeep' will have to be distinguished from a 'motor car', which is also used in the relevant entry in that Act, the Income-tax Act merely refers to a motor car and does not mention any other motor vehicle. That term in the Income-tax Act is meant to be an all inclusive term meant to encompass all vehicles, which can properly be regarded as 'motor cars' in a broad sense. The absence of a definition in the enactment does not come in the way of such a construction. It is the duty of the Court to ascertain the meaning of the terms employed in the enactment and give effect to the meaning so ascertained. While doing that task, the Court does not re-write the law, nor does it supply a omission, which it has noticed in the Act.In a taxing statute, whenever the Court finds ambiguity, it would generally lean in favour of the assessee. However, in order to lean in favour of the assessee, the Court is not bound nor should it discover ambiguities where there are none. The object of including 'motor car' in section 40 of the Finance Act, was to refer to motor cars as 'assets', which are required to be taken note of while computing the net wealth of closely held companies. 'Assets' referred to in the relevant provision cover a wide spectrum starting from gold, covering precious stones, metals, lands, buildings, debts as also motor cars. 'Assets' referred to in the relevant provision cover a wide spectrum starting from gold, covering precious stones, metals, lands, buildings, debts as also motor cars. Having regard to the context in which the term is found in the provision, it is meant to cover all motor vehicles other than heavy vehicles, such as lorries and buses, which are normally plied for hire. Though the effort made by the counsel is to be appreciated, we are unable to agree with him that any referable question of law arises in this case. The petitions are dismissed.