JUDGMENT :- Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the State of West Bengal and is directed against order dated 20th November, 2009 passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal in R.N. 271 of 2008 and R.N. 461 of 2008 which were heard analogously and disposed of by a common judgment. In the above two proceedings before the Tribunal constituted under Article 323B of the Constitution of India, the question that had fallen for determination was whether stores and spare parts for plant and machinery used for manufacturing taxable goods would fall within the meaning of ‘consumable stores’ as used in Section 22(4) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (“Vat Act”) for the purpose of claiming Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) In the above two proceedings under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, the respondents challenged the decision of the State Government not to treat the spare parts of plant and machinery to be “consumable stores” and to refuse the benefit of ITC on purchase of spare parts used for the manufacture of taxable goods. The Tribunal has accepted the contention of the respondents that spare or spare parts or machine parts would be considered for ITC only if it can be established that those are required for the purpose of manufacturing and used or to be used in the operative machineries during the process of manufacture of the finished product. It has been further held that for claiming ITC in respect of accessories, it is to be established that those are intricately linked with the process of manufacturing or with the productive machineries. Being dissatisfied, the State of West Bengal has come up with the present writ-application. Mrs. Roy, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has strongly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Coastal Chemicals Limited vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2000) 117 STC page 12 and has contended that in order to get the benefit of the ITC under the heading “consumable spares”, such articles in question must be transformed into the end product. According to Mrs. According to Mrs. Roy, the spare parts of the plant and machineries remain in the same condition even after the manufacturing of the taxable goods and thus, the learned Tribunal below erred in law in holding that spare parts are “consumable stores” within the meaning of the Act. In other words, Mrs. Roy contends that the use of the adjective “consumable” before the noun “stores” is significant and unless such spare parts are consumed in the process of manufacturing the goods sought to be taxed, the benefit of ITC for purchase of such spare parts is not available. Mr. Gupta and Mr. Khaitan, the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have, however, opposed the aforesaid contention of Mrs. Roy and have contended that the word “consumption” has a wider meaning and it is not necessary that by the act of consumption the commodity in question must be “used up” or “destroyed” and mixed in the taxed goods. In support of such contention, they relied upon the following decisions: 1) Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Sales & Ors., reported in (2008) 15 VST 228 ; 2) Burmah-Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. of India Ltd., Belgaum vs. Belgaum Borough Municipality, Belgaum, reported in (1963) Supreme Court 906; 3) State of Karnataka vs. B. Raghurama Shetty, reported in (1981) Vol.47 Sales Tax Cases 369; 4) Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar & Ors., reported in (1965) Vol. XVI Sales Tax Cases 259; 5) Ami Pigments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in (2010) 32 VST 97 . Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this writ application is whether the spare parts of themachineries used for the purpose of manufacturing the taxable goods should be treated to be “consumable stores” so as to get the benefit of ITC under Section 22(4) of the VAT Act. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this writ application is whether the spare parts of themachineries used for the purpose of manufacturing the taxable goods should be treated to be “consumable stores” so as to get the benefit of ITC under Section 22(4) of the VAT Act. In order to appreciate the question involved, it will be profitable to refer to the provision contained in Section 22(4) of the Act which is quoted below: “(4) Subject to the other provisions of this section, the input tax credit or input tax rebate shall be allowed to the extent of the amount of tax paid or payable by the purchasing dealer on his purchase of taxable goods, other than such taxable goods as specified in the negative list appended to this section, made in the State from a dealer when such goods are purchased for- (a) sale or resale by him in West Bengal; or (b) sale in the course of inter-State trade and commerce within the meaning of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of 1956); or (c) use as containers or materials for packing of taxable goods intended for sale, in the State or in the course of inter-State trade and commerce within the meaning of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; or (ca) use as containers or materials for packing of goods intended for sale in the course of export out India within the meaning of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of 1956); or (d) use as raw materials and consumable stores required for the purpose of manufacture of taxable goods intended for sale in the State or in the course of inter-State trade and commerce within the meaning of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; or (e) use as containers or packing materials for use in the packing of goods so manufactured as referred to in clause (d) above; or (f) use in the execution of works contract; or (g) use as capital goods required, for the purpose of manufacture or resale of taxable goods or for execution of works contract, as the case may be, and purchases of such goods are capitalized in the books of account of such manufacturer, works contractor or reseller, as the case may be; or (h) use as raw materials, capital goods and consumable stores required for the purpose of manufacture of any goods to be sold in the course of export under section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and containers or packing materials for use in the packing of goods so manufactured; or (i) making zero-rated sales other than those referred to in clause (h) above: Provided that if purchases are used partially for the purposes specified in this subsection, the input tax credit or input tax rebate shall be allowed to the extent they are used for the purposes specified in this sub-section.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid provision, we find that ITC rebate should be allowed to the extent of the amount of the tax paid or payable by the purchasing dealer on his purchase of taxable goods other than such taxable goods as specified in the negative list appended to the said section made in the State from a dealer when such goods purchased are inter alia used as raw materials and consumable stores required for the purpose of manufacture of taxable goods intended for sale in the State or in the course of inter-State trade and commerce within the meaning of Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The phrase “consumable stores” consists of two words- “consumable” used as adjective and “stores” used as noun. There is no dispute that spare parts of machinery come within the meaning of the word “stores’ used in plural as a noun. The only dispute is as regards the meaning of the adjective “consumable” placed before the noun “stores”. It is well known that a suffix “able” added to a verb makes the same adjective meaning thereby that the same is “capable of” doing the “action” or subject to the “action” the said verb denotes. Thus, the adjective “consumable” means that the same is capable of being “consumed” or subject to “consumption”. Once the legislature has deliberately used the adjective “consumable” before the noun “stores”, it necessarily follows that it was quite conscious of the fact that stores are of two types, viz. consumable and non-consumable, and that it proposed to give benefit of rebate only to the “consumable stores” by excluding such benefit to the “nonconsumable stores”. It is a well-known rule of construction of statute that a Court should presume that the legislature does not use any unnecessary word and thus, the introduction of the adjective “consumable” before the noun “stores” was a conscious act of legislature. The next question is whether all the spare parts of a machinery used for manufacturing the taxed goods (in this case textile goods) are consumable in nature and if it is really treated to be such, then the next question will be, what are articles which can be described as “non-consumable stores”. According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English by A. S. Hornby, Fourth Edition, the word “consume” has been defined thus: “V (Tn) - 1. (a) Use (sth) up: consume resources, time, stores, etc. - The car consumes a lot of fuel. (rhet) He soon consumed his fortune, i.e. spent the money wastefully. (b) destroy (sb/sth) by fire, decay, etc.: The fire quickly consumed the wooden hut.- (fig) be consumed (ie filled) with envy, hatred, etc. 2. Eat or drink (sth).” In our opinion, all the types of spare parts of machinery used for manufacturing the taxed goods cannot come within the purview of “consumable stores” because of the fact that all the spare parts of a machinery are never consumed in the process of its running. 2. Eat or drink (sth).” In our opinion, all the types of spare parts of machinery used for manufacturing the taxed goods cannot come within the purview of “consumable stores” because of the fact that all the spare parts of a machinery are never consumed in the process of its running. We, however, propose to give the broad meaning of the word “consumable” according to the ordinary dictionary meaning. In our opinion, only those spare parts of the machinery, which get decayed or used up and require replacement, should come within the purview of the phrase “consumable stores”. For the purpose of giving illustration, we propose to mention some of the items of the consumable spare parts of the machinery (this list should not be treated to be exhaustive), i.e. fan, belt, washers, filters, gasket, rubber items, leather items etc. We are, however, unable to accept the extreme contention of Mrs. Roy, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, that in order to come within the phrase “consumable stores”, those spare parts must lose its identity and be mixed up with the taxed goods in the process of manufacture in order to get the benefit of rebate. As would appear from the relevant provisions of the Statute i.e. “consumable stores required for the purpose of manufacture of taxable goods”, the consumable stores entitled to rebate should be “required for the purpose of manufacture” and thus, it is not the requirement of law that such consumable stores must also lose its identity in the process of manufacture and should be mixed with the finished taxed goods. In the case of Members, Board of Revenue, West Bengal vs. Phelps (supra), relied upon by Mr. Gupta, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents, the question was whether ‘gloves’ put on by the purchasing Companies’ workmen engaged in hot jobs or in handling corrosive substances in the course of manufacture can be stated to have been used in the manufacture of goods for sale as understood by the provisions of Section 5 (2) (a) (ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The Apex Court answered the said question in affirmative holding that that those gloves were to be used by workmen who were engaged in hot jobs or in handling corrosive substances in the course of manufacture. The Apex Court answered the said question in affirmative holding that that those gloves were to be used by workmen who were engaged in hot jobs or in handling corrosive substances in the course of manufacture. That being so, the Apex Court proceeded, it could not be denied that those gloves had to be “used in the course of manufacture”. In our opinion, the phrase “required for the purpose of manufacture” should be given the same interpretation as “used in course of manufacture”. In the case of Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna and others (supra), the Supreme Court held that the cane baskets which are required for carrying ore and other materials used in mining or in the manufacture of goods being intended for use in the process of manufacturing or mining operations can be specified in the certificate of registration under the Central Sales Tax Act (74 of 1956). In the case of Coastal Chemicals Ltd. etc. vs. Commercial Tax Officer, A.P. and others (supra), upon which Mrs. Roy placed strong reliance, the matter went to the Supreme Court in the following circumstances: The order under challenge was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on a writ-petition filed by the appellant. The writ petition was dismissed and the appellant went to the Supreme court by way of special leave to appeal. The appellant purchased natural gas from the first respondent, the Oil and Natural Gas Commission. It used the natural gas as fuel for the manufacture of paper and paper products. It claimed that it was entitled to the concessional rate of tax that was provided for under Section 5B (1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. Originally this was permitted and, when it was not, the appellants filed the writ-petition. Section 5-B (1) stood thus: "Notwithstanding anything in this Act, every dealer shall pay, in respect of any sale of goods to another dealer for use by the latter as raw material, component part, subassembly part, intermediate part, consumables and packing material of any other goods which he intends to manufacture inside the State, a tax at the rate of four paisein the rupee or the rates specified in Ss. 5, 5-A and 6-B in respect of goods other than declared goods, or Ss. 5, 5-A and 6-B in respect of goods other than declared goods, or Ss. 6, 5-A and 6-B in respect of declared goods, whichever is lower on the turnover relating to such sale : Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to any sale unless the dealer selling the goods furnished to the assessing authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duty filled in and signed by the dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority on payment of prescribed fee." The argument on behalf of the appellant was that the natural gas was consumable within the meaning of the aforesaid provision and, therefore, entitled to the concessional rate of tax. The High Court relied upon the Supreme Courts judgment in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam vs. M/s. Thomas Stephen and Co. Ltd., Quilon, (1988) 2 SCC 264 : ( AIR 1988 SC 997 ), to come to the conclusion that the natural gas fell outside the meaning of the word consumables in the said provision. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the word consumables in the said provision took the colour from and must be read in the light of the words that are its neighbours, namely, raw material, component part, sub-assembly part and intermediate part. So read, according the Apex Court, it was clear that the word consumables therein referred only to material which is utilised as an input in the manufacturing process but is not identifiable in the final product by reason of the fact that it has got consumed therein and it is for this reason that consumables had been expressly referred to in the said provision, though they would fall within the broader scope of the words raw material. In the case before us, the relevant subsection (4) of the statutes, with which we are concerned, demands that the input tax credit or input tax rebate shall be allowed to the extent of the amount of tax paid or payable by the purchasing dealer on his purchase of taxable goods, other than such taxable goods as specified in the negative list appended to this section, made in the State from a dealer when such goods are purchased for use as raw materials and consumable stores required for the purpose of manufacture of taxable goods intended for sale in the State or in the course of inter-State trade and commerce within the meaning of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Therefore, the reason behind the interpretation of the word “consumables” used in the case of Coastal Chemicals Ltd. (supra) cannot be attributed for the purpose of the West Bengal Statute, where in addition to the raw materials used, the “consumable stores” of its own right has been given the benefit of rebate. The words “consumable stores” are joined by the conjunction “and” with the phrase “raw materials” in the case before us just like the item “packing material of other item” appearing in the Andhra Pradesh Statute dealt with in the Coastal Chemicals Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the phrase “consumable stores” appearing in the present Statute should get the same treatment of “packing material of other item” appearing in the Andhra Pradesh Statute and not that of “consumables” used therein along with ‘raw materials’, component part, sub-assembly part, intermediate part, each item separated by a “coma”. Therefore, the said decision cited by Mrs. Roy does not help her client in anyway. We are, thus, of the view that those stores including the goods or spare parts of the machinery used for the purpose of the manufacture of the taxed goods which are decayed and require replacement should come within the purview of the words “consumable stores” within the meaning of the Act and that it is not necessary that those stores must be mixed up with the ultimate taxed goods. At the same time, those stores which are not decayed or do not require replacement for such decay would not come within the purview of sub-rule (d) of section 22 (4) of the Act and the order of the Tribunal is modified only to that extent. At the same time, those stores which are not decayed or do not require replacement for such decay would not come within the purview of sub-rule (d) of section 22 (4) of the Act and the order of the Tribunal is modified only to that extent. We, therefore, find no substance in the contention of Mrs. Roy, the learned Advocate for the writ-petitioners that the learned Tribunal below made wrong interpretation of the phrase “consumable stores” and wrongly granted benefit to the respondents. The writ-application is, thus, disposed of in terms of our above order. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.