JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - The question involved in the present revision is whether sales tax on the sale of eucalyptus trees by the applicant who is neither the owner of any forest nor an importer of any wood/timber can be levied in view of the Notification No. 6071 dated September 30, 1983. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1986-87. The applicant, a private limited company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 is registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and carried on the business of manufacture and sale of cement pipes as well as sale of jute bags, etc. The sale of cement pipes, jute bags, etc., are not in dispute in the present revision as its account books have been accepted. The assessing officer imposed sales tax to the tune of Rs. 21,876 on the sale of trees made by the applicant for a sum of Rs. 1,82,300 which is the subject-matter of the present revision. All the three authorities have upheld the levy of sales tax on the sale of trees made by the applicant on the basis of. Heard Shri Bharatji Agrawal, the Senior Counsel for the applicant and the learned Standing Counsel for the Department. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no such tax on the sale of eucalyptus trees can be validly levied on the applicant in view of the aforesaid Notification No. 6071 dated September 30, 1983. The relevant entry of the said notification reads as follows : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Sl. No. Description of goods Point of tax Rate of tax ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75 Wood and timber of all Sale by the Forest Department, Uttar 12%". kinds and of all trees, of Pradesh Forest Corporation or by private whatever species, owner of forest or by importer : including bailies and Provided that where the sale is by the bamboos, whether Forest Department to the Uttar Pradesh growing or cut or sawn, Forest Corporation, the tax shall be levied but excluding their on the point of sale by the said Corporation, products and firewood. and not on the point of sale by the forest Department. and not on the point of sale by the forest Department. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A bare perusal of the aforesaid notification shows that the point of tax is sale (i) by the Forest Department; (ii) U.P. Forest Corporation; or (iii) by private owner of forest; or (iv) by importer. The case of the department is that the sale of the eucalyptus trees is liable to be taxed at the point of sale as "by private owner of forest". Disputing the above, it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that he is not owner of any private forest. Therefore, the crux of the controversy is whether the applicant can be treated as a private owner of forest, to fasten liability on it. The Tribunal has correctly found that the sale of eucalyptus was sale of goods within the meaning of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 inasmuch as after cutting the trees they were removed by the purchaser. It is noticeable as stated by the Tribunal that in the present days with the advancement of science and agriculture, the people grow the trees to maintain ecological balance and they adopt scientific method to grow trees. Such trees are being got planted and grown by different Government and non-Government organisations and therefore the groups of such trees is treated as forests. Forest can be formed by the spontaneous or natural growth of trees. If that is so, it amounts to giving a restricted meaning to word "forest" and it would be against the intention of the Legislature as the trees which have been planted and grown with the scientific and agriculture advancement will escape sales tax in view of the above notification. Therefore, the intention of the Legislature in the said notification was to cover all such trees which have been grown by persons in huge quantities. On the above premises, the Tribunal upholds the sales tax liability on the dealer. Challenging the correctness and legality of the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal the present revision has been filed. It was contended by the learned counsel of the applicant that the Tribunal swayed away by irrelevant considerations while interpreting the phrase "sale by private owner of forest". The dealer is not a private owner of a forest. Nor the plantation of eucalyptus trees at the manufacturing site or at work place will make the dealer a private owner of forest. The dealer is not a private owner of a forest. Nor the plantation of eucalyptus trees at the manufacturing site or at work place will make the dealer a private owner of forest. The words "private owner of forest" is not defined under the U.P. Sales Tax Act or in the Rules framed thereunder or in any notification. Therefore, these words should be interpreted, as they are understood in common parlance. "Forest" has been defined in Random House Dictionary, page 555 as follows : "A forest is an extensive area, preserving some or all of its primitive wildness and usually having game or wild animals in it." Similarly, "forest" has been defined in Stout's Judicial Dictionary, Volume II, at page 1079, as follows : "Forest is a place privileged by royal authority or by prescription for peaceful abiding and nourishment of beasts or birds of the forest." In Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Volume I, at page 890, "forest" has been defined as follows : "a dense growth of trees and underbrush covering a large tract of land; an extensive plant community of shrubs and trees in all stages of growth and decay with a close canopy having the quality of self-perpetuation or of development into an ecological climax, such a growth or community together with the land on which it stands." A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Janu Chandra Waghmare v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 Bom 119 interpreted the expression "forest" under the entry No. 19 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and has held that the expression "forests" in its normal and popular connotation includes all that goes with it, such as, trees with fruits on them, shrubs, bushes, woody vegetation, undergrowth, pastures, honey-combs attached to trees, juices dried on trees, things embedded in the earth like mines and quarries, etc. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Volume I gives the meaning of forest, which reads as under : "(1) An extensive tract of land covered with trees and undergrowth, sometimes intermingled with pasture; (2) Law-A woodland district, usually belonging to the King, set apart for hunting wild beasts and game, etc. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Volume I gives the meaning of forest, which reads as under : "(1) An extensive tract of land covered with trees and undergrowth, sometimes intermingled with pasture; (2) Law-A woodland district, usually belonging to the King, set apart for hunting wild beasts and game, etc. ...; (3) A wild, uncultivated waste." One of the meaning is "a wild uncultivated waste." To find out the appropriate solution of the controversy in hand it is proper to look into the principles of interpretation of entries of a taxing notification. The settled principle is that the items in the taxing statute must be construed in the sense in which they are sold by the dealer and purchased by the customers. The operation of a notification has to be adjudged not by the object which the rule-making authority had in mind but by the words which it has employed to effectuate the legislative intent. [A.C.T.O., Ward - 3 Circle, Jaipur v. Shiv Shakti Gold Finger [1991] 83 STC 267 (Raj)]. It is firmly established that classification of goods should be according to their popular meaning as they are understood in their commercial sense and not as per the scientific or technical meaning. The Supreme Court has observed that how the product is identified by the class or section of people dealing with or using the product, is also a test when the statute itself does not contain any definition and commercial parlance would assume importance when the goods are marketable. It has considered the observation made by the Exchequer Court in King v. Planters Nut and Chocolate Company Limited 1951 Canada LR 122. Dealing with the meaning of the term "vegetables" it was held by the said court that it is not botanist's conception as to what constitutes a "fruit or vegetables" which must govern the interpretation to be placed on a word but rather what would ordinarily mean in the matters of commerce in Canada be included therein. Botanically the oranges and lemons are berries but otherwise no one would consider them as such. Botanically the oranges and lemons are berries but otherwise no one would consider them as such. In Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer [1961] 12 STC 286; AIR 1961 SC 1325 , the Supreme Court was concerned with the word "vegetables" occurring in C.P. and Bearer Sales Tax Act, 1947 and it was held as follows : "But this word must be construed not in any technical sense nor from the botanical point of view but as understood in common parlance. It has not been defined in the Act and being a word of every day use it must be construed in its popular sense meaning 'that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it'. It is to be construed as understood in common language." The same principle was reiterated in Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh [1967] 19 STC 469 (SC); AIR 1967 SC 1454 . In this case it was held that the charcoal would be included in coal, with the following observations : "Now, there can be no dispute that while coal is technically understood as a mineral product, charcoal is manufactured by human agency from products like wood and other things. But it is now well-settled that while interpreting items in statutes like the Sales Tax Acts, resort should be had not to the scientific or the technical meaning of such terms but to their popular meaning or the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them, that is to say, to their commercial sense." The same view has been reiterated by the apex court in the case of South Bihar Sugar Mills Limited v. Union of India AIR 1968 SC 922 and Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1977 SC 597 . In view of the above principles of interpretation of entries of a taxing notification it is difficult to agree with the view of the Tribunal. The view taken by the Tribunal is neither in conformity with the dictionary meaning of the word "forest" nor as it is understood in common parlance. It is also settled that the words of taxing statutes if are ambiguous, the theory of intention of Legislature cannot be invoked into to fasten a tax liability. In view of the above discussion the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. It is also settled that the words of taxing statutes if are ambiguous, the theory of intention of Legislature cannot be invoked into to fasten a tax liability. In view of the above discussion the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The Tribunal is not right in holding that the sale of eucalyptus trees is liable to be taxed, at the hands of the applicant, under the aforesaid notification. By no stretch of imagination, it is possible to hold that the dealer was private owner of forest. In the result the revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and it is held that the applicant is not liable to pay any sales tax on the sale of the eucalyptus trees with costs of Rs. 1,000 (rupees one thousand only).