Judgment : R.B. MISRA, J. - 1. Present petition has been filed with following prayers:- (a) Quash Annexure PAB i.e. impugned order dated 28th January, 2013, passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby he has dismissed appeals bearing No. VAT-M-18, 19 and 20 (2012-2013), which had been filed by the present petitioner Company against the Assessment Orders Annexure PH, PJ and PK, dated 5th July, 2012, for the Assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively, passed by respondent No. 5, with all consequential relief in favour of the petitioner Company; (b) Quash notices Annexure PE and PF issued by respondent No. 3 by illegally assuming jurisdiction and describing himself as the Assessing Authority, which jurisdiction is vested in respondent No. 5 alone and in consequence thereof to quash Assessment Orders Annexure PH, PJ and PK which have been passed by the said respondent No. 5 Assessing Authority; and (c) Hold and direct that Term and Condition No. 17 of Annexure PC relating to construction of Poly Houses and Installation of Micro Irrigation Systems of Part-A and Part-B of the Pandit Deen Dayal Kisan Bagwan Samridhi Yojana, stood waived as being directive and not mandatory so far as the conduct of the business by the petitioner is concerned and in the alternative to quash the same as being violative of the Principles enshrined in Article 14, 19(1)(g) and Article 301 of the Constitution of India." 2. The impugned order dated 28th January, 2013 (Annexures PAB collectively) were passed by Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Central Zone), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., affirming the orders passed on 5.7.2012 by Assessing Authority for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 (Annexures PH, PJ and PK) respectively along with notices Annexure PE, dated 2.3.2013 issued under Section 37 of The Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax, 2005 (in short called 'VAT Act' hereinafter) and Annexure PF, dated 2.3.2013 issued under Section 21 of the 'VAT Act'. Besides this, the petitioner has also sought directions for declaring the term and condition No. 17 of Annexure PC relating to construction of Poly Houses and Installation of Micro Irrigation Systems of Part-A and Part-B of the Pandit Deen Dayal Kisan Bagwan Samridhi Yojana as waived as being directory and not mandatory. Besides this, the petitioner has also sought directions for declaring the term and condition No. 17 of Annexure PC relating to construction of Poly Houses and Installation of Micro Irrigation Systems of Part-A and Part-B of the Pandit Deen Dayal Kisan Bagwan Samridhi Yojana as waived as being directory and not mandatory. In order to adjudicate the present writ petition, the preliminary submissions have been advanced for and on behalf of the State Government that the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedies of preferring an appeal under Section 45 of the 'VAT Act' and still being aggrieved thereof the remedy of filing revision to High Court under Section 48 of the 'VAT Act', is available, as such, the prayers made in the present writ petition for quashing the notices, assessment orders and first appellate be not entertained, in view of the judgment and verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Another, (2010) 4 SCC 772 . Relevant paragraph 31 is extracted below:- "31. Similarly, under Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order XLIII Rule 1 thereof, it has been indicated from which interlocutory order an appeal will lie. But it has been made clear that no Second Appeal from such order will lie [See Section 104 Sub-section (2) of the Code]. But in Debt Recovery Tribunal Act, as in FEMA, an appeal lies from an interlocutory order and this has been made clear in Section 20(1) of the Act." The reliance has also been placed on Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another (2011) 7 SCC 639 , the relevant paragraph 21 is reproduced herein below: "21. While dealing with a similar issue in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 32 , (hereinafter called as 'Narmada Bachao Andolan-II'), this Court observed as under: "Several contentions involving factual dispute had, we may notice, not been raised before GRA. GRA had been constituted with a purpose, namely, that the matters relating to rehabilitation scheme must be addressed by it at the first instance. This Court cannot entertain applications raising grievances involving factual issues raised by the parties. GRA being headed by a former Chief Justice of the High Court would indisputably be entitled to adjudicate upon such disputes. GRA had been constituted with a purpose, namely, that the matters relating to rehabilitation scheme must be addressed by it at the first instance. This Court cannot entertain applications raising grievances involving factual issues raised by the parties. GRA being headed by a former Chief Justice of the High Court would indisputably be entitled to adjudicate upon such disputes. It is also expected that the parties should ordinarily abide by such decision. This Court may entertain an application only when extraordinary situation emerges." Thus, in view of the above, the High Court ought to have directed the oustees to approach the GRA for redressal of their grievances and if any person was further aggrieved of the directions issued by the GRA, he could have approached the High Court after full fledged adjudication of the factual issues by the GRA." Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2011) 2 SCC 782 . Paragraph 23 is reproduced herein below:- "23. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy was available to the appellants under Section 17 of the Act. It is well settled that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person. (See Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2003) 3 SCC 524 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 762, Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 and SBI v. Allied Chemical Laboratories (2006) 9 SCC 252 .)" 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has humbly submitted at the outset that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing of various agricultural relating irrigation equipment/systems such as sprinklers, drip irrigation system etc. and supply of these items are being made to the farmers of Himachal Pradesh under the scheme known as Pandit Deen Dayal Bagwan Samridhi Yojna directly from manufacturing plant / Central warehouse of Gurgaon/Haryana on proper invoices and documents by way of inter-State sale, as such, the petitioner Company is not liable to tax, since the goods being supplied from Haryana to the farmers of Himachal Pradesh fall under Schedule "B" of 'VAT Act', as such, are exempted goods and on interpretation also would fall under the category of goods exempted from tax, therefore, the controversy has to be set at rest at this stage. Treating the notices, assessment orders and appellate orders as illegal, the same are liable to be set aside. Since the impugned order Annexure PAB suffers from vice of rule of "audi alteram partem", moreso, the assessing officer as well as the Appellate Authority without any analysis and without assigning any reasons has assumed that sprinklers, the irrigation system installed by the petitioner-Company, are not agricultural implements, manually operated, as such, present writ petition be entertained irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has not resorted to the alternative remedies available under the 'VAT Act'. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at New Delhi having its manufacturing unit at Gurgaon, Haryana, is engaged in manufacturing of equipments/systems, such as sprinklers, drip irrigation system etc. relating to agriculture. For that petitioner is registered under the 'VAT Act' and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short "CST Act"), having its TIN 02090200801. The petitioner company has been empanelled by the Director, Department of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh for the supply of micro irrigation system (sprinklers, drip irrigation etc.) to the farmers of Himachal Pradesh under scheme/Yojna, as the petitioner was declared successful tenderer along with other companies and has entered into agreement (indicated in Annexure PC of the present writ petition). The petitioner Company recovers the cost of such equipment 20% from the farmers and balance 80% from department of Agriculture in the form of subsidy. Though the petitioner Company had been supplying above materials to the farmers of State of Himachal Pradesh by issuing bills and invoices from its local office at Mandi, H.P., however, the petitioner has been avoiding payment of Value Added Tax (VAT) payable under 'VAT Act' and the Rules framed therein under the garb of treating the transaction of exempted goods being made in inter-State trade. The assessing officer had made survey of the business premises of the petitioner Company and had issued notices and has made assessments for the years, 2009-10, 2010- 11 and 2011-12 (Annexures PH, PJ and PK), raising demand of 'VAT' with interest and penalty vide assessment order dated 5.7.2012 for respective three years. The assessing officer had made survey of the business premises of the petitioner Company and had issued notices and has made assessments for the years, 2009-10, 2010- 11 and 2011-12 (Annexures PH, PJ and PK), raising demand of 'VAT' with interest and penalty vide assessment order dated 5.7.2012 for respective three years. The contention of the petitioner that it is supplying tax free manually operated agricultural implements, was not accepted by the assessing officer, as the same was not treated as agricultural implement manually operated or animal driven and the assessing officer has held that complete irrigation system installed by the petitioner Company required additional materials like pipes, joints, sockets, sprinkler etc. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeals No. VAT-M-18-1920. The petitioner also preferred writ petition No. 10200 of 2012, which was disposed of on 4.12.2012, by this Court (DB) with directions to Appellate Authority to dispose of the said appeals. Consequently, the appeals for respective three years were dismissed on 28.1.2013 vide (Annexures PAB colly), thereby affirming the assessment orders. 5. The core points for determination in the present writ petition are as below:- (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the transaction of supplying sprinkler etc. from Haryana in question i.e. installation of irrigation system including sprinkler to the farmers of Himachal Pradesh is inter-state or intra-state sale? (ii) Whether Irrigation sprinkler system supplied by the petitioner-Company is "agricultural implement, manually operated or animal driven" and falls under Schedule "B" of VAT Act, therefore, exempted from tax? 6. In sequence to the submissions advanced before the Assessing Authority and to the First Appellate Authority, the following submissions have been advanced for and on behalf of the petitioner:- (i) There is no restriction on the petitioner to conduct transaction from the office opened at Bagla, Mandi, H.P., rather to supply the agricultural implements in question from Plant/Central Warehouse, Gurgaon. (ii) Depositing a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- under protest was not to be treated as confession for making intra- State sale. (iii) Issuance of invoices and bills from local Office of petitioner in Himachal Pradesh to the farmers of Himachal Pradesh is a transaction to be treated as inter-State sale. (ii) Depositing a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- under protest was not to be treated as confession for making intra- State sale. (iii) Issuance of invoices and bills from local Office of petitioner in Himachal Pradesh to the farmers of Himachal Pradesh is a transaction to be treated as inter-State sale. (iv) The manufacturing plant/Central Warehouse of petitioner is at Gurgaon from where the agriculture implements are sent directly to the farmers of Himachal Pradesh via its branch office at Himachal Pradesh, in such circumstances the transaction is inter-State sale, as the branch office at Mandi, Himachal Pradesh is merely the conduit between the original consignor and the ultimate consignee. (v) Supply of micro irrigation system under the 'Yojna' directly to the farmers of Himachal Pradesh is interstate sale and is not an intra-State sale. (vi) The sprinkler is an ordinary agricultural implement indicated at Sr. No. 6 of entry 22(A) of Schedule "B" of Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 and is under exempted good from tax. (vii) The condition No. 17 of (Annexure PC) is only directory which indicates as "No billing is allowed from outside the state so the companies will have to obtain the necessary TIN No. within 15 days from the date of empanelment.", provided under the terms and conditions to be followed/observed by the petitioner-Company short listed on the basis of technical and financial bids to act as service provider for construction of Poly Houses and installation of micro irrigation systems i.e. Part-A and Par-B under Pt. Deen Dayal Kisan Bagwan Samridhi 'Yojna', such condition is an impediment in carrying out the installation of micro irrigation system under 'Yojna', as such, be declared as ultra virus. (viii) Almost every homeowner in North America spends some amount of time and money providing water to outdoor plants by accomplishing in two ways: 1. Manual irrigation with hoses, nozzies, and sprinklers. 2. Clock driven in-ground automatic irrigation. There are hybrids of these two such as an in-ground sprinkler system that is manual operated or an above ground hose system that is clock driven, but these systems are uncommon. Many new homes come equipped with some form of clock driven automatic irrigation because this is a popular amenity that buyers have come to accept. Manual irrigation is more time and labour intensive and requires regular attention and vigilance. Many new homes come equipped with some form of clock driven automatic irrigation because this is a popular amenity that buyers have come to accept. Manual irrigation is more time and labour intensive and requires regular attention and vigilance. An automatic irrigation system can be simply programmed turned on and left to run. Such a "hands off" approach is not recommended as it almost always result in over-watering and water waste, but there is no denying the convenience of an automatic irrigation system. For those unable to physically drag hoses and sprinklers and those just tired of manually irrigating then an automatic system could be just the ticket. Some people chose to have and automatic system installed as a way of maintaining a high quality landscape with reduced effort. For a moderate or large sized landscape that would take significant time and effort to irrigate with a hose and sprinklers, an automatic system may be an excellent addition. (ix) The sprinkler has been shown under Schedule I of Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 as a good exempted from tax. The sprinkler along with other agricultural implements, have been shown in the list of exempted goods in Schedule-I of Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Ordinance, 2007. The agricultural implements manually operated or animal driven or tractor driven and cart driven by animal have been shown in Sr. No.1 in Schedule-I of Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, indicating that no tax under this Act shall be payable on the sale or purchase of such goods. Likewise also, sprinkler has been shown exempted from payment of 'VAT' in Schedule-I of Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers Association Vs. Administrative Officer and Others, (2004)1 SCC 755 has submitted that the statute has to be read as a whole on the principle of doctrine of para materia reference to other statutes dealing with the same subject or forming part of the same system as a permissible aid to the construction of provisions in a statute. On such analogy, since the sprinkler is being treated as exempted-good from tax in the above referred other States, as such, is to be understood and treated as agricultural implement in State of H.P. and exempted from tax. On such analogy, since the sprinkler is being treated as exempted-good from tax in the above referred other States, as such, is to be understood and treated as agricultural implement in State of H.P. and exempted from tax. (x) Vide letter dated 19.3.2012, (Annexure-PB), from Divisional Engineer (Soil Conservation), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh issued to the petitioner, the entire operation of sprinkler is shown as manual and extremely simple. The relevant extract of the letter is given as below:- "The method of applying water above the ground surface, somewhat resembling rainfall, is known as sprinkler irrigation technique. Himachal Pradesh is a hilly state and the agriculture land ere is mostly on slops with natural gradient and therefore water for irrigating the fields from various sources travels from top to bottom, with the force of gravity, through water channels locally known as "Kuhl". The use of Sprinklers by farmers for irrigating their fields saves up to 50% water. Not only the surplus water could be utilized elsewhere but irrigating using Sprinklers also limits soil erosion from the fields. In addition, the farmer gets increased and improved yield. Typically, for operation of Sprinklers, a tank has to fill with water using the traditional water channels described above. The outlet Pipes, made as per IS 14151 (Part-II), i.e. Portable Sprinkler pipes are then connected from this Water Tank and laid till the field where they are connected to the Sprinkle heads. Upon opening the outlet, water flows to the Sprinkler heads which start irrigating the field. Once the required irrigation has been done in a particular area of the field, the fully portable Pipes/Sprinklers can be easily relocated for irrigating another area of the field. The entire operation is manual and extremely simple. (Lay out plan of Sprinkler system is attached separately)." (xi) As per Schedule "A" Part-II of H.P. 'Vat Act', in reference to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section (6), "the agricultural implements not operated manually or not driven by animal" as shown at Sr. No. 1 are taxable @4%. Few articles shown at Sr. No. 19 i.e. Centrifugal, mono block and submersible pump sets and parts thereof at Sr. No. 69 i.e. non mechanized Boat used by Fishermen, Sr. No. 73, pipes of all varieties including G.I. pipes, C.I. Pipes, Ductile pipers and PVC pipes and fittings thereof at Sr. No. 1 are taxable @4%. Few articles shown at Sr. No. 19 i.e. Centrifugal, mono block and submersible pump sets and parts thereof at Sr. No. 69 i.e. non mechanized Boat used by Fishermen, Sr. No. 73, pipes of all varieties including G.I. pipes, C.I. Pipes, Ductile pipers and PVC pipes and fittings thereof at Sr. No. 80, rail coaches, engines and wagons and parts thereof, have been shown taxable @4%. Whereas, agricultural implements manually operated or animal driven is to be taken goods exempted from tax in reference to Section 9 of Schedule-B of Himachal Pradesh 'VAT Act'. It has been argued for and on behalf of the petitioner that the manufacturing plant and Central Warehouse of the petitioner-Company is situated at Gurgaon, Haryana, from where the micro irrigation system has been supplied directly to the farmers of Himachal Pradesh under the 'Yojana', supported on documents, as such, the transaction in question is fulfilling the basic requirement of interstate sale as the movement of goods is linked with the contract. In support of the assertion that petitioner has made transactions under inter-State trade, following submissions have been made for and on behalf of the petitioner:- (a) The supply of crude oil by a company in Assam through its own pipeline to a refinery in Bihar in pursuance of an agreement was treated to be an inter-State sale in reference to Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Oil India Ltd. Vs. The Superintendent of Taxes and others, (1975) 1 SCC 733 . Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited Vs. The Superintendent of Taxes and others, (1975) 1 SCC 733 . Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Others (1985) 4 SCC 173 , paragraphs 8, 10 and 11, where movement of goods from one State to another was result of a covenant in the contract of sale or an incident of that contract as the buyer has placed the order with the company's branch office for supply of specific goods and the branch office communicated the terms and specifications of the order to the company's registered office and situated in another State, where manufacturing of goods was being done and accordingly dispatch of goods was made to the branch office and branch office delivered the goods to the buyer, raising bills and receiving sale price, such transaction was treated to be inter- State sale. (b) In reference to the observations made in State Trade Corporation of India Ltd. and another vs. The State of Mysore and another, AIR 1963 SC 548 , paragraphs 9, 10 & 12, the present transaction of the petitioner was said to be inter-State transaction. (c) The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred and relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Hyderabad Engineering Industries Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2011(4), SCC 705. The relevant paragraph 48 is quoted below:- "48. Section 2(g) of the Central Act defines the meaning of the expression 'sale'. This expression was explained by this Court in Balabahagas Hulsachand Vs. State of Orissa (1976) 37 STC 207 at page 213. This Court stated that the words 'Sale of goods' used in this Section includes 'an agreement of sale' as such an agreement is an element of sale and is also an essential ingredient thereof, in terms of Section 4(1) of the Sales of Goods Act, that is, it is sufficient if the agreement of sale contemplates an inter-State movement of the goods though the sale itself may take place, at the destination or in the course of the movement of the goods. This view was reiterated and further explained by this Court in Union of India Vs. K.G. Khosla and Co. (1979) 43 STC 457 . This view was reiterated and further explained by this Court in Union of India Vs. K.G. Khosla and Co. (1979) 43 STC 457 . The consistent view of this Court appears to be that even if there is no specific stipulation or direction in the agreement for an inter-State movement of goods, if such movement is an incident of that agreement, or if the facts and circumstances of the case denote it, the conditions of Section 3(a) would be satisfied." (d) State of Orissa & another Vs. M/S K.B. Saha and Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Etc., (2007) 9 SCC 97 . The paragraphs 2, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 read as under:- "2. Writ petitions were filed by the respondents on the plea that the transactions between them and the Corporation were in course of inter-State trade and, therefore, only sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short the 'Central Act') and not the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short the 'State Act') was leviable. Accordingly, prayer was made for a declaration that levy and collection of tax under the State Act was unauthorized, without jurisdiction and the excess amount collected from them under the guise of State sales tax should be refunded. 12. The nature of a transaction i.e. whether it is an inter-State or intra-State would depend upon the factual scenario of the case under examination. The Corporation only accepts tenders from purchasers who are duly registered with it. The registration is renewed from time to time. One of the Clauses on which the High Court has placed great reliance is Clause 3.7. The same reads as follows: "The tenderer shall be bound by all Forest Department rules and regulations in connection with the purchase and transit of the forest produce." It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that in the tender document there was clear indication that the principal place of business and additional place of business of the respondents were all outside the State of Orissa. The details of the registrations under the West Bengal Act and the Central Act were indicated. The way bill of transport and consignment of goods despatched from outside the State of West Bengal to any place in West Bengal was also brought on record. 13. The details of the registrations under the West Bengal Act and the Central Act were indicated. The way bill of transport and consignment of goods despatched from outside the State of West Bengal to any place in West Bengal was also brought on record. 13. Reference was also made to the certificate issued by the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax, West Bengal under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Income tax Act') to the Corporation to the effect that the respondents would be utilizing the tendu leaves for the purpose of manufacture and not for trade purpose and, therefore, authorized the Corporation not to collect tax at source in terms of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act. 14. Though mere knowledge about the ultimate destination cannot be sufficient, yet cumulative effect of the factual scenario has to be considered. 15. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of a few decisions on the question of inter-State sale. 16. Strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for the State on a decision of this Court in Balabhagas Hulaschand v. State of Orissa ( 1976 (2) SCC 44 ), more particularly, the position highlighted at page 52 which reads as follows: "12. Furthermore, we can hardly conceive of any case where a sale would take place before the movement of goods. Normally what happens is that there is a contract between the two parties in pursuance of which the goods move and when they are accepted and the price is paid the sale takes place. There would, therefore, hardly be any case where a sale would take place even before the movement of the goods. We would illustrate our point of view by giving some concrete instances: Case No. I-A is a dealer in goods in State X and enters into an agreement to sell his goods to B in State Y. In pursuance of the agreement A sends the goods from State X to State Y by booking the goods in the name of B. In such a case it is obvious that the sale is preceded by the movement of the goods and the movement of goods being in pursuance of a contract which eventually merges into a sale the movement must be deemed to be occasioned by the sale. The present case clearly falls within this category. The present case clearly falls within this category. Case No. II-A who is a dealer in State X agrees to sell goods to B but he books the goods from State X to State Y in his own name and his agent in State Y receives the goods on behalf of A. Thereafter the goods are delivered to B in State Y and if B accepts them a sale takes place. It will be seen that in this case the movement of goods is neither in pursuance of the agreement to sell nor is the movement occasioned by the sale. The seller himself takes the goods to State Y and sells the goods there. This is, therefore, purely an internal sale which takes place in State Y and falls beyond the purview of Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act not being an inter-State sale. Case No. III--B a purchaser in State Y comes to State X and purchases the goods and pays the price thereof. After having purchased the goods he then books the goods from State X to State Y in his own name. This is also a case where the sale is purely an internal sale having taken place in State X and the movement of goods is not occasioned by the sale but takes place after the property is purchased by B and becomes his property". 17. It is to be noted that the position in law as stated in the same paragraph was specifically dissented from in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. and Ors. v. M/s Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti and Ors. ( 1992 (3) SCC 750 ). In para 15 it was noted as follows: "15. Shri Sehgal relies particularly upon "Case No. III" contained in the first extract and clause (iii) mentioned in the second extract. Relying upon these statements, the learned counsel contends that a concluded sale must necessarily take place in the other State and not in the State from which the goods emanate. According to him, a concluded or a completed sale must follow the movement of goods and should not precede. If a purchase or sale is complete in the State from which the goods emanate, he says, it can never be an inter-State purchase or sale. We cannot accede to this understanding of the learned counsel. According to him, a concluded or a completed sale must follow the movement of goods and should not precede. If a purchase or sale is complete in the State from which the goods emanate, he says, it can never be an inter-State purchase or sale. We cannot accede to this understanding of the learned counsel. The said observations, no doubt rather widely worded, must be understood in the context of the question that arose for consideration in that case viz., whether an agreement of sale is included within the definition of 'sale' as defined in the Central Sales Tax. Be that as it may, the true position has since been explained in the later decision in Khosla and Co. It is immaterial whether a completed sale precedes the movement of goods or follows the movement of goods, or for that matter, takes place while the goods are in transit. What is important is that the movement of goods and the sale must be inseparably connected. The ratio of Balabhagas is this: if the goods move from one State to another in pursuance of an agreement of sale and the sale is completed in the other State, it is an inter-State sale. The observations relied upon by Shri Sehgal do not constitute the ratio of the decision and cannot come to the rescue of the appellant- State. Indeed, if one looks to the language employed in clause (a) of Section 3 it seems to suggest that the movement of goods follows upon and is the necessary consequence of the sale or purchase as the case may be and not the other way round." 18. In the said judgment the view expressed by this Court in Union of India and Anr. v. M/s K.G. Khosla and Co. Ltd. and Ors. ( 1979 (2) SCC 242 ) was adopted. In paragraphs 15 and 17 of the judgment in Khosla's case the position was stated as follows: "15. It is true that in the instant case the contracts of sales did not require or provide that goods should be moved from Faridabad to Delhi. Ltd. and Ors. ( 1979 (2) SCC 242 ) was adopted. In paragraphs 15 and 17 of the judgment in Khosla's case the position was stated as follows: "15. It is true that in the instant case the contracts of sales did not require or provide that goods should be moved from Faridabad to Delhi. But it is not true to say that for the purposes of Section 3(a) of the Act it is necessary that the contract of sale must itself provide for and cause the movement of goods or that the movement of goods must be occasioned specifically in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale. The true position in law is as stated in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Bombay v. S.R. Sarkar (1961 (1) SCR 379) wherein Shah, J. speaking for the majority observed that clauses (a) and (b) of Section 3 of the Act are mutually exclusive and that Section 3(a) covers sales in which the movement of goods from one State to another "is the result of a covenant or incident, of the contract of sale, and property in the goods passes in either State" (page 391). Sarkar, J speaking for himself on behalf of Das Gupta, J agreed with the majority that clauses (a) and (b) of Section 3 are mutually exclusive but differed from it and held that "a sale can occasion the movement of the goods sold only when the terms of the sale provide that the goods would be moved; in other words, a sale occasions a movement of goods when the contract of sale so provides" (page 407). The view of the majority was approved by this Court in Cement Marketing Co. of India v. State of Mysore ( 1963 (3) SCR 777 ); State Trading Corporation of India v. State of Mysore ( 1963 (3) SCR 792 ) and Singareni Collieries Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( 1966 (2) SCR 190 ). In K.G. Khosla and Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, counsel for the Revenue invited the court to reconsider the question but the Court declined to do so. v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( 1966 (2) SCR 190 ). In K.G. Khosla and Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, counsel for the Revenue invited the court to reconsider the question but the Court declined to do so. In a recent decision of this court in Oil India Ltd. v. The Superintendent of Taxes ( 1975 (3) SCR 797 ) it was observed by Mathew, J., who spoke for the Court, that: (1) a sale which occasions movement of goods from one State to another is a sale in the course of inter-State trade, no matter in which State the property in the goods passes; (2) it is not necessary that the sale must precede the inter-State movement in order that the sale may be deemed to have occasioned such movement; and (3) it is also not necessary for a sale to be deemed to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, that the covenant regarding inter-State movement must be specified in the contract itself. It would be enough if the movement was in pursuance of and incidental to the contract of sale (page 801 SCC p.737, para 9). The learned Judge added that it was held in a number of cases by the Supreme Court that if the movement of goods from one State to another is the result of a covenant or an incident of the contract of sale, then the sale is an inter-State sale. 17. This decision may be usefully contrasted with another decision between the same parties, which is reported in State of Bihar v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. ( 1971 (2) SCR 849 ). In that case the turnover in dispute related to the sales made by the company to its dealers of trucks for being sold in the territories assigned to them under the dealership agreements. Each dealer was assigned an exclusive territory and under the agreement between the dealers and the company, they had to place their indents, pay the price of the goods to be purchased and obtain delivery orders from the Bombay office of the company. In pursuance of such delivery orders trucks used to be delivered in the State of Bihar to be taken over to the territories assigned to the dealers. In pursuance of such delivery orders trucks used to be delivered in the State of Bihar to be taken over to the territories assigned to the dealers. Since under the terms of the contracts of sale the purchasers were required to remove the goods from the State of Bihar to other States, no question arose in the case whether it was or was not necessary for a sale to be regarded as an inter-State sale that the contract must itself provide for the movement of goods from one State to another. If a contract of sale contains a stipulation for such movement, the sale would, of course, be an inter-State sale. But it can also be an inter-State sale even if, the contract of sale does not itself provide for the movement of goods from one State to another but such movement is the result of a covenant in the contract of sale or is an incident of that contract." 7. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the simple and popular meaning of sprinkler has to be given, which can be understood in the popular sense, keeping in view the utility and purpose. For that purpose, reliance has been placed on following cases:- (a) U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Kisan Upbhokta Parishad & Ors., (2007)13 SCC 246 . Paragraphs 12, 15 and 18 are reproduced herein below:- "12. In the Mimansa Rules of Interpretation, which is our indigenous system of interpretation, one of the principles is: The above principle means the popular meaning overpowers the etymological meaning. 15. Keeping the above principle in mind we may now consider whether an Animal Driven Vehicle can be said to be an agricultural implement. In our opinion it cannot, for the obvious reasons that in common parlance implements are usually regarded as tools used by human beings with their hands (and sometimes with their legs), or driven by animal power. Thus, a plough which is driven by oxen or horses would be regarded as an agricultural implement. Similarly, a hoe or a spade would be agricultural implements. However, a bullock cart which is used for carrying the agricultural produce from the farm to the market or the sugar factory cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as an agricultural implement, because in common parlance it would not be regarded by people as an implement. Similarly, a hoe or a spade would be agricultural implements. However, a bullock cart which is used for carrying the agricultural produce from the farm to the market or the sugar factory cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as an agricultural implement, because in common parlance it would not be regarded by people as an implement. A bullock cart is surely not a tool, though the plough which it pulls (for furrowing the land) is certainly a tool and therefore, an agricultural implement. 18. Before parting with this case, we would like to say that it is deeply regrettable that in our Courts of law, lawyers quote Maxwell and Craies but nobody refers to the Mimansa Principles of Interpretation. Today our so- called educated people are largely ignorant about the great intellectual achievements of our ancestors and the intellectual treasury they have bequeathed us. The Mimansa Principles of Interpretation is part of that intellectual treasury, but it is distressing to note that apart from a reference to these principles in the judgment of Sir John Edge, the then Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court, in Beni Prasad vs. Hardai Devi, (1892) ILR 14 All 67 (FB), there has been almost no utilization of these principles even in our own country (except by one of us, M. Katju, J. in some of his judgments delivered at Allahabad High Court and in this Court vide M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai JT 2006(12) SC 379". (b) In State of Punjab Vs. Hindsons (P) Ltd. 1984 (Supp), SCC 415, relevant paragraph 3 is reproduced below:- "3. The narrow question is whether belt pulley attachment is an agricultural implement so as to be exempt from the levy of sales tax under the Act. It is indeed true as held by the High Court that the belt pulley when used in a tractor may increase the utility of the tractor for agricultural operations but that by itself does not lend to the inevitable conclusion that belt pulley attachment is an agricultural implement. The Tribunal in this connection, has rightly held that not only belt pulley attachment is used in the tractor but it is also used in water pumps, thrashers etc. The High Court unfortunately overlooked, the most obvious fact that belt pulley is also sold as a separate spare part. The Tribunal in this connection, has rightly held that not only belt pulley attachment is used in the tractor but it is also used in water pumps, thrashers etc. The High Court unfortunately overlooked, the most obvious fact that belt pulley is also sold as a separate spare part. It is used in various other machines such as motor car engines. Belt pulley means a pulley over which a belt may pass to transmit power to other part of the machine. Common sense tells us that even in a motor-car there is belt pulley and the rotational movement is transmitted from the rotating fan via the belt on the pulley to the pulley of the dynamo for charging it. The assessee is selling belt pulley attachment as spare part which can thus be used in many machines. If it is so then it is difficult to understand how belt pulley attachment by itself becomes an agricultural implement. When used in a motor engine, how can one ever assume that it is an agricultural implement. It may as well be used in many agricultural instruments where mechanised farming takes place. But by itself when sold as a spare part it cannot by itself become an agricultural implement. The exemption was with regard to an agricultural implement as contemplated by Entry 34 in Schedule 'B' to the Act. Undoubtedly, later on by amendment to Entry 34 on April 15, 1971, belt pulley attachment has been introduced in Entry 34. On this account alone it cannot however, be contended that the amendment merely makes explicit what was implicit in the entry as it stood prior to the amendment. The Tribunal rightly held that if belt pulley is used in a tractor and sales tax is levied on the sale of tractor no separate sales tax is levied on belt pulley. We do not propose to view the matter from this angle. We must examine whether a belt pulley attachment when sold as a spare part would be comprehended in Entry 34 which sets out agricultural implements exempted from the levy of sales tax. Obviously as stated earlier belt pulley attachment which can be used in various mechanical appliances or devices by itself cannot be said to be an agricultural implement. We must examine whether a belt pulley attachment when sold as a spare part would be comprehended in Entry 34 which sets out agricultural implements exempted from the levy of sales tax. Obviously as stated earlier belt pulley attachment which can be used in various mechanical appliances or devices by itself cannot be said to be an agricultural implement. To comprehend it in the generic term "agricultural implement", we would have to stretch the language to impermissible limit of breaking it." (c) In Parmeshwar Lal Bihani Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, (2000)9 SCC 259 , wherein in absence of evidence regarding the meaning of the entry in question in common parlance and understanding, the entry interpreted by reference to the plain language thereof. Further relying on Mahavir Aluminium Limited Vs. Controller of Central Excise Jaipur, (1999)6 SCC 65 , it has been submitted that the sprinkler falls under the category of agricultural implements used for sprinkling water in fields, lawns and gardens, therefore, in terms of Section 37-B of Central Excise Act, 1944, the interpretation of agricultural implement has been made. Further reliance has been placed on State of Punjab Vs. Hindsons (P) Ltd., (supra), wherein it has been held that belt pulley attachment is not only used in tractors, but also used in water pumps, thrashers etc. as the same may be used in many agricultural instruments where mechanized farming takes place and when used in a tractor may increase the utility of the tractor for agricultural operations by virtue of such utility the belt pulley cannot be said to be agricultural equipment within the meaning of entry 34 of Schedule "B" of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, as it stood prior to 1971 amendment. The Supreme Court has observed in Superbilt Mechanic Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and others, (1973) 31 STC 557 that any agricultural implement is an implement i.e. used in agricultural and any implement i.e. used after the agricultural process comes to an end and manufacturing process commences, is not agricultural implement. On that analogy any implement used in process of 'gur' is not an agricultural implement and boiling pans are not agricultural implements; as indicated in Government notification No. ST.119/X-928 dated 7th June, 1948 made under Section 4 of U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1994 and as such they are not exempted from sales tax. On that analogy any implement used in process of 'gur' is not an agricultural implement and boiling pans are not agricultural implements; as indicated in Government notification No. ST.119/X-928 dated 7th June, 1948 made under Section 4 of U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1994 and as such they are not exempted from sales tax. Relying on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sirsilk Ltd. Vs. Textiles Committee and others, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 168, wherein rayon and nylon yarn was said to be covered within definition of other fiber, namely man-made fiber, provided in Textiles Committee Act, 1963. On that analogy it has been said that sprinklers are agricultural implements and not liable to tax. 8. Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of the State that the Department of Agriculture of State of Himachal Pradesh, which has floated the 'Yojna' for providing assistance and subsidy to the farmers of Himachal Pradesh and the Department of Agriculture has issued the terms and conditions (vide Annexure PC) to be followed by the petitioner-Company, as such, the petitioner is legally bound to abide by said terms and conditions. Since the subsidy in question is to be granted by the Agricultural Department, after recording satisfaction with the quantity of equipments supplied by the petitioner-Company, as such, the Department of agriculture of State of Himachal Pradesh is a necessary party and non-joinder of such party is an impediment factor, whereby the prayers of the petitioner are to be rejected. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sales Tax Officer, Jodhpur and another Vs. Shiv Ratan G. Mohatta, (1965) 16 STC 599 , wherein it is held that it is not the object of Article 226 of Constitution to convert High Courts into original/appellate authorities whenever the petitioner/assessee chose to attack an assessment order on the ground that a sale was exempted from tax. The Department of Agriculture has empanelled the petitioner to install micro irrigation system on the fields of farmers of Himachal Pradesh under certain conditions. The sale is to be completed after satisfaction of farmers and PIA (Officer's of Agriculture Department) in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Department of Agriculture has empanelled the petitioner to install micro irrigation system on the fields of farmers of Himachal Pradesh under certain conditions. The sale is to be completed after satisfaction of farmers and PIA (Officer's of Agriculture Department) in the State of Himachal Pradesh. As per condition No. (8), the installation cost as well as component cost approved for different types of micro irrigation system are inclusive of all taxes and carriages of materials and the company was bound to generate bills including 'VAT' and invoices to the farmers after the completion of installation. Moreover, the company brought goods to their local office at Mandi from Gurgaon and thereafter conducted sale to the farmers by supplying/installing material in the fields of beneficiaries/farmers and after completion report by special experts of Agriculture Department, 80% subsidy was released to the petitioner-Company against invoices raised from Mandi office. From such point of view, the transaction can be said to be intra-State, but not inter-State sale. In order to analyze as to whether the transaction in question is inter-State and not intra-State sale, it is necessary to understand the following important definitions:- (a) Section 4 of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, deals with sale and agreement to sell, reads as under:- "4. Sale and agreement to sell.--(1) A contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a price. There may be a contract of sale between the part-owner and another. (2) A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional. (3) Where under a contract of sale the property in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer, the contract is called a sale, but where the transfer of the property in the goods is to take place at a future time or subject to some condition thereafter to be fulfilled, the contract is called an agreement to sell. (4) An agreement to sell becomes a sale when the time elapses or the conditions are fulfilled subject to which the property in the goods is to be transferred." (b) Formation of principles for determining when a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of inter- State trade or commerce, is to be governed by provisions of Section 3 of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which reads as below:- "3. When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce--A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce if the sale or purchase--- (a) occasions the movement of goods from one State to another, or (b) is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another. Explanation 1.- Where goods are delivered to a carrier or other bailee for transmission, the movement of the goods shall, for the purposes of clause (b), be deemed to commence at the time of such delivery and terminate at the time when delivery is taken from such carrier or bailee. Explanation 2.- Where the movement of goods commences and terminates in the same State it shall not be deemed to be a movement of goods from one State to another by reason merely of the fact that in the course of such movement the goods pass through the territory of any other State." (c) Section 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 deals with liability to tax on inter-State sales. (d) Section 2(v) of the H.P. VAT Act, 2005 defines the sale as below:- 23 "sale" means any transfer of property in goods for cash or for deferred payment or for any other valuable consideration other than a mortgage, hypothecation, charge or pledge, and includes-- (i) the transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, of property in any goods for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (ii) the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract; (iii) the delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of payment by installments; (iv) the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (v) the supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (vi) the supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; and such transfer, delivery or supply of any goods shall be deemed to be a sale of those goods by the person making the transfer, delivery or supply and a purchase of those goods by the person to whom such transfer, delivery or supply is made" 13.(a) Section 6 of the Central Act which is the charging Section, levies tax under the Central Act on all inter-State sales, determined as such under Section 3 of the Central Act. Section 9 of the Central Act provides that the tax payable by any dealer under the Central Act on the sale of goods effected by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, whether such sale falls within Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 3, shall be levied by the Govt. of India and shall be collected by that Govt. in accordance with the provisions of sub-Section (2) of that Section, in the State from which the movement of the goods commenced. The proviso enumerates an exception, but we do not consider it necessary to refer to it for the purpose of this case. of India and shall be collected by that Govt. in accordance with the provisions of sub-Section (2) of that Section, in the State from which the movement of the goods commenced. The proviso enumerates an exception, but we do not consider it necessary to refer to it for the purpose of this case. (b) Section 3 of the Act deals with inter-State sales and details the circumstances as to when a sale or purchase of goods can be said to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. A perusal of Section 3 of the Central Act shows that it raises a presumption of law and that is, a sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, if the sale or purchase (a) occasions the movement of goods from one State to another or (b) is effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another. For purposes of clause (b) of Section 3, Explanation I says that where the goods are delivered to a carrier or other bailee for transmission, the movement of the goods shall be deemed to commence at the time of such delivery and terminate at the time when delivery is taken from such carrier or bailee. Explanation II clarifies that when the movement of goods commences and terminates in the same State, the movement of goods will not be deemed to be from one State to another merely because of the fact that in the course of such movement, the goods pass through the territory of any other State. (c) For a sale to be in the course of inter-State trade or commerce under Section 3(a), the two conditions must be fulfilled. There must be sale of goods. Such sale should occasion the movement of the goods from one State to another. A sale would be deemed to have occasioned the movement of the goods from one State to another within the meaning of clause (a) of Section 3 of the Act when the movement of those goods is the result of a covenant or incidence of the contract of sale, even though the property in the goods passes in either State. A sale would be deemed to have occasioned the movement of the goods from one State to another within the meaning of clause (a) of Section 3 of the Act when the movement of those goods is the result of a covenant or incidence of the contract of sale, even though the property in the goods passes in either State. With a view to find out whether a particular transaction is an inter-State sale or not, it is essential to see whether there was movement of the goods from one State to another as a result of prior contract of sale or purchase. 9. Undisputedly, petitioner's Warehouse and manufacturing unit is located in Gurgaon (Haryana) and the petitioner has got registration in Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner has also got its office at Mandi in Himachal Pradesh. No document has been relied by the petitioner before us to reveal that the supply of sprinkler or micro irrigation system has occasioned from Haryana to Himachal Pradesh in terms of any contract between the petitioner Company and the farmers of State of H.P. Instead, the supply has been shown to have been made invariably from local office of the petitioner at Himachal Pradesh and bills and invoices has been also issued by the petitioner-Company from local office. The record indicates that invoices were raised / issued from the petitioner's branch office at Village Bagla, P.O. Nagchala, Mandi Distt. Mandi H.P., i.e. invoice No. 216 dated 24.3.2012 in the name of Sh. Sher Singh S/o Mani Ram Village Stoh P.O. Rajgar Sadar Mandi. A letter No. Agr.MDI/SC/Pt.DDKBSY-11-2009-4826 dated 22.1.2013 in which the department of Agriculture stated that the payments of subsidy on account of different farmers have been made to the petitioner Company as per the sale invoices issued from the office of Nagchala Distt. Mandi, H.P. in favour of the different farmers, the goods carries receipts (GRs) No. 15060 dated 11.12.2010, 4852 dated 20.5.2011, 15020 dated 20.11.2010 reflects that the petitioner Company consigned the goods in the name of Sub-Divisional Soil Conservation Officer Department of Agriculture Mandi, Hamirpur, Kangra etc. and also the declarations ST-26A under H.P. VAT rule 61, no. 0490188752 dated 12.12.2010- 0460296361 dated 14.6.2009, depicts that the consignor is the petitioner company and consignee is Sub-Divisional Soil Conservation Officer Mandi, Hamirpur, Kangra etc. and also produced from VAT-D-3 challan outward, under rule 56(1)(4) &(5) of VAT rule of Haryana Govt. and also the declarations ST-26A under H.P. VAT rule 61, no. 0490188752 dated 12.12.2010- 0460296361 dated 14.6.2009, depicts that the consignor is the petitioner company and consignee is Sub-Divisional Soil Conservation Officer Mandi, Hamirpur, Kangra etc. and also produced from VAT-D-3 challan outward, under rule 56(1)(4) &(5) of VAT rule of Haryana Govt. having challan outward no. A-6883883 dated 3.3.2010, A-6883864 dated 6.2.2010, A-3408625 dated 12.6.2009, B-2430349 dated 20.11.2010 also depict that the appellant consigned the goods to Sub Divisional Soil Conservation Officer Mandi, Kangra & Una. The documents and invoice, bills and other supporting documents in respect of installation of micro irrigation system in favour of Madan Lal R/o Village Roch, P.O. Nehra, Tehsil Shimla has also been perused, as produced by the State, which shows that different rates prescribed for the quantities of components and the amount of Rs.10,780/- has been charged from Sh. Madan Lal. In all these bills and invoices local address of the petitioner Company has been given as Nagchala, Mandi and the completion certificate of the installation of sprinkler along with other equipments has also been counter signed by the Sub Divisional Soil Conservator, Shimla. Such records also reveals that the transaction in question was intra State, but not inter-State. In these circumstances, Section 3 of The Central Sales Tax Act is not attracted. 10. The analysis of documents no doubt reveal that the petitioner-Company has brought the goods from Gurgaon (Haryana) to Mandi Branch, in the name of Sub Divisional Soil Conservation Officers Agriculture Department and then supplied / installed the irrigation systems in the fields of different farmers/beneficiaries under the 'Yojna' and the petitioner- Company received 80% cost of material as subsidy from the department of Agriculture and 20% cost from farmers / beneficiaries. The petitioner-Company has found to have been charged local taxes from the farmers, as evident from the invoices, which has been issued inclusive of all taxes from the branch office, Mandi. Thus, the petitioner for all purposes is said to have made intra-State sales which is liable to payment of VAT. Therefore, we hold that the transaction in question is intra- State and not inter-State sale. The first point is dealt with accordingly. Thus, the petitioner for all purposes is said to have made intra-State sales which is liable to payment of VAT. Therefore, we hold that the transaction in question is intra- State and not inter-State sale. The first point is dealt with accordingly. In order to deal with the second point, following points / aspects are to be seen:- (a) Definition of Device: According to American Heritage Dictionary: A device means "A contrivance or an invention serving a particular purpose, especially a machine used to perform one or more relative simple tasks" According to Collins English Dictionary:- "A machine or tool used for a specific task" According to Webster's College Dictionary:- "A thing made for a particular purpose, a mechanical, electric, or electronic invention or contrivance. According to thesaurus:- Device is an instrumentally invented for a particular purpose. Synonym of Device are:- GADGET, MACHINE, TOOL, INSTRUMENT, IMPLEMENT, INVENTION, APPLIANCE, APPARATUS, GIMMICK, UTENSIL, CONTRAPTION, WIDGET, CONTRIVANCE, WALDO, GIZMO. According to Oxford Dictionary:- 1. A thing made or adopted for particular purpose. 2. Scheme/trick (b) DEFINITION OF IMPLEMENT: According to American Heritage Dictionary: 1) A tool or instrument used in doing work. 2) An article used to outfit or equipment. 3) To put into practical effect, carry out, implement the new procedure 4) To supply with implements. According to Collins English Dictionary: 1) A piece of equipment, tool or utensil Gardening Implements 2) Something used to achieve a purpose agent / medium 3) To carry out or put into action, perform to implement a plan. According to Word Net 3.0 Farlex Clipart Collection: 1) An instrument, tool, or utensil for accomplishing work e.g. Agricultural implements. 2) An article of equipment, as household furniture, clothing or the like. According to Oxford Dictionary: "A tool or a utensil" According to Oxford Thesaurus: APPARATUS, APPLIANCE, CONTRIVANCE, DEVICES, GADGET, INSTRUMENT, MECHANISM, TOOL, UTENSIL. (c) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEVICE and IMPLEMENT: From the study of definitions as stated above one thing which we can trace out is that Implements and device are synonyms. But still there exists a hairline difference between the two. According to Oxford Dictionary: "A tool or a utensil" According to Oxford Thesaurus: APPARATUS, APPLIANCE, CONTRIVANCE, DEVICES, GADGET, INSTRUMENT, MECHANISM, TOOL, UTENSIL. (c) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEVICE and IMPLEMENT: From the study of definitions as stated above one thing which we can trace out is that Implements and device are synonyms. But still there exists a hairline difference between the two. Going through the definitions of device we found use of words "particular" and "specific" whereas, while studying the definitions of Implement general phrases like "work" and "purpose" have been used which lead us to derive a conclusion that device is something which is more specific, not general the device can be used to achieve some or only one particular purpose. On the other hand Implements are those which can be used in any purpose or work which can be done through them. "Implement" is used in most generic sense e.g. A knife is a well known implement of kitchen but number of times used outside it, not only for the purpose it was meant to be but also for those purposes which are not even intended to be. On the other hand, regarding device we can have an example of watch which can only be used to confirm "what time it is". The phrase "Implement" is inclusive and not exhaustive, as that of device. (d) WHETHER SPRINKLER IS IMPLEMENT OR DEVICE:- Sprinkler According to American Heritage Dictionary of English:- (i) One that sprinklers especially (a) an outlet on a sprinkle system. (b) A device with perforations through which water issues from a house to sprinkle a lawn. (ii) A sprinkle system. According to Collins English Dictionary:- (1) (Life Sciences and Allied Applications/Botany) a device perforated with small holes that its attached to a garden, house or watering and used to spray, plants, lawns etc. with water. (2) A person or a thing that sprinkles. Sprinkler:- Mechanical device that attaches to a garden house for watering lawn or garden. So from above definitions we can trace out that due to a peculiar feature of a sprinkler, it is used for sprinkling and it may be categorized as a device because of a reason that beside "sprinkling" it cannot be used for any other purpose. Moreover, the above discussion also makes it clear that it is a device. So from above definitions we can trace out that due to a peculiar feature of a sprinkler, it is used for sprinkling and it may be categorized as a device because of a reason that beside "sprinkling" it cannot be used for any other purpose. Moreover, the above discussion also makes it clear that it is a device. "Sprinkler is a mechanical device that attaches to a garden house for watering lawn or garden" (e) What is an Agricultural Implement:- Agricultural Implement as such bear no definition/dictionary meaning. However, according to Oxford Dictionary, Agricultural implement means relating to agriculture. It is an adjective of agriculture. Meaning of implement:- According to word net 30 Farlex clipart collections:- An instrument, tool or utensil for accomplishing work e.g. Agricultural implement. So, by combining the two we can trace out the definition of agricultural implement in its most generic sense:- An agricultural implement is an instrument, tool or utensil for accomplishing agricultural work. According to law lexicon:- Agricultural Implement means tools, apparent or instruments employed in agriculture. (f) According to Bharat Engineering and Foundry Works Vs. The U.P. Government (1963) 14 STC 262 An agricultural implement is an implement that is used in agriculture, and any implement that is used after agricultural process comes to an end and manufacturing process commencing is not an agriculture implement. In the case of "Gur", agricultural process finishes when sugar cane is harvested and bought home, and preparation of "gur" from it is not continuation of the agricultural process, however while a meaning may be given to "agriculture". As any implement that is used in preparing "gur" is not "agriculture Implements", comes crusher or boiling pans are not "agricultural implements" 11. In Delta Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Income Tax (1963) 14 STC 515 , It was observed that centrifugal water pumps used for pumping water from the well are not "agricultural implements". "Agricultural Implements" means the apparatus or instruments employed in agriculture. Merely because water pumped out from wells by means of the water pumps can be used for irrigation, it cannot be said that they are instrument employed in agriculture. The Bharat Engineering and Foundry Works case (supra) was considered and it was observed that in that case Court dealt with the meaning of "agriculture" and "agricultural implement" and stated that any implement that is used in an agricultural process is an agricultural implement. The Bharat Engineering and Foundry Works case (supra) was considered and it was observed that in that case Court dealt with the meaning of "agriculture" and "agricultural implement" and stated that any implement that is used in an agricultural process is an agricultural implement. Pumping water from well is not by itself an agricultural process. We appreciate that irrigating agricultural land is an agricultural process or operation, but merely because water pumped out from well by way of water pump may be used for irrigation it cannot be said that pumping put water by means of pump is itself an agriculture operation or process. Actually Agricultural process or operation will start after water has been pumped out and stored, it will start when it is taken out from the storage tank towards the land to be irrigated. The case of Persian Wheel may be different because there it may be used direct i.e. without being stored or collected for irrigating land. A Persian wheel may be worked out at one end and without anything being done a field may be irrigated, at the other end the working of Persian wheel directly and automatically result into irrigation. But position with centrifugal water pumps is different. It is not used like Persian Wheel directly for irrigating land, it is used solely for lifting water out from the well, water pumped out may be used for any purpose and not exclusively or even predominantly for irrigation. In view of above analysis we infer that an agricultural implement from above two cases as we understood means an implement, which has two basic things: (i) It must be used solely for carrying out agricultural process i.e. from ploughing of land till harvesting. Nothing before that is inclusive in its definition, nor anything beside it is an agricultural process. (ii) That there must be a direct nexus between implement and agriculture. Anything indirectly used to initiate or finish agricultural process is not covered under the definition of agricultural implements. (g) WHETHER SPRINKLER IS POWER DRIVEN/ANIMAL DRIVERN/MANUAL:- "Sprinkler is a mechanical device that attaches to a garden hose for watering lawn or garden." Sprinkler may work with the aid of mechanical energy or power. So neither it is animal driven or manually operated. Here it becomes necessary to deal with the meaning of mechanical energy:- "A mechanical energy is the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy. So neither it is animal driven or manually operated. Here it becomes necessary to deal with the meaning of mechanical energy:- "A mechanical energy is the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy. It is the energy associated with the motion and position of an object e.g. Movement of Pendulum. Generally there are two types of mechanical energies i.e. kinetic energy and mechanical energy. Kinetic energy is an energy specifically associated with an objects motion and mechanical energy, which is the result of position of an object or is an ability to do work. Standing water is an example of potential energy. It is called as conserved mechanical energy and depends upon its mass or height. One more aspect is gravitational potential energy of an object:- which is due to its position above the surface of earth is that potential energy is maximum at height and kinetic energy is maximum at bottom. The result of potential energy and kinetic energy is mechanical energy. In general, the faster an object moves (in our case water) or greater its mass or height, then greater the amount of energy it can possess. An object's kinetic energy or potential energy can increase with increasing mass. A large river system has great mass, elevation and motion and therefore, can be a tremendous source of energy. So it is the energy produced by moving water i.e. kinetic energy which ultimately result into rotation of sprinkler. The inference thus is that it is not animal driven or manually operated. In order to know whether sprinkler is an agricultural implement- if so whether taxable under H.P. VAT Act or not. When we go through the definition of device, we come to know that it is an instrument designed to carry out a particular or specific purpose. Sprinkler serves the purpose of sprinkling water so it is a device in that sense. However, if we ignore the hairline difference between the two then it can be regarded implement and also if we link it with the purpose it serves i.e. agricultural process as narrated in Bharat Engineering Case (supra) and Delta Engineering Co. case (supra), whereby sprinkler is an agricultural implement which is used for irrigation, which is one of the agricultural process falling between ploughing till harvesting. On the other hand, it has a direct nexus with the irrigation process. case (supra), whereby sprinkler is an agricultural implement which is used for irrigation, which is one of the agricultural process falling between ploughing till harvesting. On the other hand, it has a direct nexus with the irrigation process. So it is an agricultural implement not animal driven or manually operated. Hence, it is taxable under Schedule-A (entry-1) Point No. 2 is dealt with accordingly. 12. The petitioner Company itself has entered into the contract with the State Government vide Annexure-PC and has also agreed to obey the terms and conditions of the agreement, moreso, as per condition No.17, the petitioner was not allowed to raise any bill from out of the State. Nothing has been brought on record to show how this condition was directory only. As the petitioner's allocation of the work of installation of micro irrigation systems under Yojna was subject to such condition. This is mandatory condition. Nothing has been argued or brought on record to show how the petitioner's right under Article 14, 19(1)(g) and Article 301 of the Constitution is infringed whereas the petitioner Company is legally obliged to make the payment to the State Government. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited & Others versus Eastern Metals and Alloys & Others, (2011) 11 SCC 334 , in Paragraph-25, has observed regarding golden rule as below:- "The golden rule of interpretation is that the words of a statute have to be read and understood in their natural, ordinary and popular sense. Where however the words used are capable of bearing two or more constructions, it is necessary to adopt purposive construction, to identify the construction to be preferred, by posing the following questions: (i) What is the purpose for which the provision is made? (ii) What was the position before making the provision? (iii) Whether any of the constructions proposed would lead to an absurd result or would render any part of the provision redundant? (iv) Which of the interpretations will advance the object of the provision? The answers to these questions will enable the court to identify the purposive interpretation to be preferred while excluding others. Such an exercise involving ascertainment of the object of the provision and choosing the interpretation that will advance the object of the provision can be undertaken, only where the language of the provision is capable of more than one construction. (See Bengal Immunity Co. Such an exercise involving ascertainment of the object of the provision and choosing the interpretation that will advance the object of the provision can be undertaken, only where the language of the provision is capable of more than one construction. (See Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar - 1955 (2) SCR 603 and Kanailal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan - 1958 SCR 360 and generally Justice G.P.Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 12th Edition, published by Lexis Nexis - Pages 124 to 131, dealing with the rule in Haydon's case)." In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta versus G.C.Jain & Another, the popular or commonsense meaning has to be given to the words and phrases provided in the statute. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh versus Rakesh Kohli & Another, (2012) 6 SCC 312 , when language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, interference of the Court is not warranted. 13. In view of the analysis, made above, it has become very clear that the 'sprinkler' is not an agricultural implement nor it is driven manually or by animal. Thus, it is not exempted from tax in Schedule 'B' of 'H.P. VAT Act'. As such, the petitioner company is not entitled to exemption from tax. In our considered view, we do not find any scope for interference in the assessment orders as well as the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, challenged above in the present writ petition. The writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.