JUDGMENT : Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. The present revisions have been filed by the assessee against common order of the Tribunal dated 11.4.2008 passed in Second Appeals No.254/04,255/04 and 256/04 for A.Y. 2001-02,2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively, by which the revenue's appeals have been allowed and the order passed by the first appeal authority, deleting the penalties under Section 8-D(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act,1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been reversed. 2. Undisputedly, facts of the case are that the assessee is a university established under the Uttar Pradesh Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidalaya Adhiniyam 2000 (U.P. Act No.19 of 2000). During the assessment years in question, the assessee awarded contracts, for construction of college and residence for staff etc., to three contractors. It made payments to them without making any deduction of tax at source. This became subject matter of penalty proceedings under Section 8-D (6) of the Act. According to the assessing officer, the assessee was obliged to make deduction of tax at source under Section 8-D (6) of the Act. Since entire payments were made without necessary deductions, the assessee was visited with penalty orders for the three assessment years. 3. The amount of penalties apart, the main issue raised by the assessee was that it was not liable to make deduction of tax at source and therefore, it did not infringe the law. That submission found favour with the first appeal authority which deleted the penalty. However, the tribunal has reversed the findings and restored the penalties. 4. Heard Sri Amarendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist-assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-revenue. 5. The present revision has been pressed on the following ground:- (i) Whether penalty under Section 8-D (6) could have been imposed on the assessee though it was not obliged to make deduction of tax at source under notification No. 2401 dated 27.4.1987?" 6. Notification No.2401 dated 27.4.1987 reads as below: "In exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 8-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act,1948 (U.P. Act No. XV of 1948). Notification No.2401 dated 27.4.1987 reads as below: "In exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) of Section 8-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act,1948 (U.P. Act No. XV of 1948). The Governor is pleased to notify in the public interest that the provisions of the aforesaid section shall not apply to a building contract other than that between a contractor and (a) the Central Government or any State Government or (b) any local authority; or (c) any corporation or undertaking established or constituted by or under a Central Act or State Act; or (d) any company; or (e) any co-operative society or other society club, firm or other association of persons, whether incorporated or not." 7. Clearly, the applicability of Section 8-D (1) and therefore, requirement to make deduction of tax at source, had been created specifically with respect to payments made under contracts awarded by specified persons, namely, the Central Government, State Government, local authorities, a corporation or undertaking? established under a Central or State Act or a company or a co-operative society, or club or firm or other association of person, whether incorporated or not. 8. In the first place, a university established under a separate enactment was not specifically mentioned or included as a person made liable to comply with Section 8-D (1) of the Act. Second, separate categories of persons having been specified under each clause (a) to (e) of the aforesaid notifications and thus, made liable to make deduction of tax at source, all other persons not so specified, would stand necessarily excluded from the requirement to make deduction of tax at source. 9. Though the assessee is a university, established under a State enactment, clearly, it is not? specified under the notification in question and therefore, it is not obliged to make deduction of tax at source. The fact that there may be some differences in the status of the assessee university as compared to the Aligarh Muslim University, would not be decisive, inasmuch as, the applicability of notification No. 2401 dated 27.4.1987 did not hinge on the constitutional or other status of the university (such as the Aligarh Muslim University). 10. Keeping in mind the different category of persons specified under the aforesaid notification, the assessee clearly does not fall under the description of persons of clauses (a), (b), (d) or (e). 10. Keeping in mind the different category of persons specified under the aforesaid notification, the assessee clearly does not fall under the description of persons of clauses (a), (b), (d) or (e). While clause (c) does appear to include corporations and undertakings established or undertakings constituted by or under a Central or State Act, however, it cannot be read to include within its ambit a university that primarily is a center for higher education. Though not defined under the Act, it is a specie apart from normal or usual corporate entities. It derives its identity and character, different and distinct from statutory corporations by it's activities, privileges and academic content. Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edition) describes 'Universities' as: "Para 256. General. A university is the whole body of teachers and scholars engaged, at a particular place, in giving and receiving instruction in the higher branches of learning; such persons associated together as a society or corporate body, with definite organization and acknowledged powers and privileges (especially that of conferring degrees), and forming an institution for the promotion of education in the higher or more important branches of learning; also, the colleges, buildings and other property belonging to such a body. Although the institutions to which it refers are readily identifiable, precise and accurate definition is difficult. The essential feature of a university seems to be that it was incorporated as such by the sovereign power. Other attributes of a university appear to be the admission of students from all parts of the world, a plurality of masters, the teaching of one at least of the higher faculties, namely, theology, law or philosophy (which in some definitions are regarded as identical) and medicine, provision for residence and the right to confer degrees, but possession of these attributes will not make an institution a university in the absence of any express intention of the sovereign power to make it one. A university involves the relation of tutor and pupil; it is charged with the supervision and upbringing of the pupil under tuition. Incorporation was anciently effected by papal grant or charter and later by royal charter or Act of Parliament. A university involves the relation of tutor and pupil; it is charged with the supervision and upbringing of the pupil under tuition. Incorporation was anciently effected by papal grant or charter and later by royal charter or Act of Parliament. The practice adopted in the case of the most recent foundations is to incorporate the university by royal charter, to which there is annexed a schedule containing the original statutes of the university, and thereafter to obtain the passing of a local Act of Parliament vesting in the university the property and liabilities of any institution which it replaces and making other necessary provisions. A copy of any application for a charter for the foundation of any college or university which is referred by the Queen in Council for the report of a committee of the Privy Council must be laid before Parliament, together with a copy of the draft charter, for not less than 30 days before the committee reports upon it. The functions of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in relation to universities in Wales, have not been transferred to the Secretary of State for Wales." 11. Thus, in the modern sense of the term, departed from it's origin, it is difficult to treat universities such as the assessee as a corporation or undertaking, especially in the context of the aforesaid taxing notification, that apparently seeks to identify different categories of persons, made liable to deduct tax at source. Used in that sense, the words corporation and undertaking clearly refer to status of the person as a corporation or an undertaking only, while university is primarily seen and understood as an educational institution and not a corporation or undertaking. 12. Being a provision creating liability under a taxing status, it has to be strictly read and no other rule of interpretation is required to be invoked. In that regard in A.V. Fernandez Vs. State of Kerala, (1957) AIR SC 657, it was held- "29. It is no doubt true that in construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict letter of the law and not merely to the spirit of the statute or the substance of the law. If the Revenue satisfies the Court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If the Revenue satisfies the Court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter." 13. Inasmuch as, the assessee being a university does not naturally or freely fall within the description of any of the persons specified under Clause (a) (e) of the Notification No. 2401 dated 27.4.1987. No attempt is to be made to force it to fit into description of any person made liable under the notification. Hence, the assessee was never required to make deduction of tax at source on payment made to its contractors. Therefore, no penalty was leviable on that count. 14. In view of the above, question of law is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of revisionist-assessee and against the respondent-revenue. The revision is allowed.