COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. SEN A K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE reference applications raised an interesting and common question of law and as such can be disposed of by a common judgment. The following question has been referred to this Court for its opinion at the instance of the CWT, Delhi -VIII, at New Delhi, under S. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") :

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the WTO, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CWT (Appeals) who reversed the finding of the WTO and held that the principle of ejusdem generis cannot be applied while interpreting S. 5(1)(xii) of the Act as "works of art", "archaeological collections", "scientific collections" which precede the word "books" in S. 5(1)(xii) of the Act do not all fall into same category or genus. The Tribunal before whom appeal was filed by the CWT, vide its order dt. 21st May, 1981, confirmed the view of the CWT (Appeals) and held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(xii) of the Act. It has been brought to our notice that the Department has accepted the above findings of the Tribunal and has not sought review/revision of the orders under S. 25 or other provisions of the Act for subsequent years. However, the present references have been referred to this Court for opinion at the instance of the CWT under S. 27(1) of the Act. Mr. Misra, learned counsel for the Department, while interpreting S. 5(1)(xii) of the Act, tried to invoke the principle of ejusdem generis and submitted that the books or manuscripts mentioned in s. 5 ( 1 ) (xii) of the Act cannot cover the books of the library of the assessee. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the words "books or manuscripts" mentioned in S. 5(1)(xii) of the Act are of general import and that it is the duty of the Court to give these words a plain and unrestricted meaning and the context and the scheme of the enactment does not require otherwise. Therefore, "books" mentioned in S. 5(1)(xii) of the Act covers the books of the library of the assessee as well and the value of the books cannot be added to the wealth of the assessee for the purpose of determining net wealth.

(3.) FURTHERMORE , it appears, that the Legislature, in its wisdom, has not placed any restrictions while referring to manuscripts and books in S. 5(1)(xii) of the Act for the purpose of determination of the net wealth unlike the other two parts. The only restriction placed is that there should be books and these should belong to the assessee and that they should not be intended for sale. The object of this provision appears to be to promote education and learning amongst the masses who in this country mostly are illiterate and without whose education the country cannot develop and progress. Therefore, it is not surprising that the law -makers decline to place restriction under S. 5 (1)(xii) of the Act in the case of books. It goes without saying that the books and manuscripts are undoubtedly words of wide and unqualified amplitude and, therefore, these words must receive full and unrestricted meaning. We, therefore, see no grounds as to why the books and manuscripts referred to in S. 5(1)(xii) of the Act should not cover the library books of the assessee and why these books be not exempted from the purview of the wealth -tax. In Amar Chandra Chakraborty vs. Collector of Excise, AIR 1972 SC 1863, the Supreme Court has laid down in what circumstances the principle of ejusdem generis can apply and has observed that the ejusdem generis rule strives to reconcile the incompatibility between specific and general words. This doctrine applies when (i) the statute contains an enumeration of specific words ; (ii) the subject of the enumeration constitutes a class or category ; (iii) that class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration ; (iv) the general term follows the enumeration ; and (v) there is no indication of a different legislative intent. As already discussed above, the phraseology used in different parts do not form the same class, category or genus and, therefore, the general words used in part (3) cannot be construed of the same kind as those specified earlier. Further, the legislative intent and context in which the words "books and manuscripts" are used in S. 5(1)(xii) of the Act also indicate a different intention and the principle of ejusdem generis cannot be applied. No restrictions have been laid down for restricting and cutting down the general import of such words. Therefore, these words "manuscripts and books" must be given their natural and unrestricted meaning and these cannot be read down as to be confined only to the subjects dealt with earlier. In this connection, reference may be made to CWT vs. S. N. Kacker (1989) 175 ITR 129, wherein a similar question of interpretation of the provisions of S. 5(1)(xii) of the Act arose for consideration before the Allahabad High Court and an exactly a similar view has been expressed by that Court. It has been herd therein that the principle of ejusdem generis cannot be applied and that "books and manuscripts" are undoubtedly words of wide and unqualified amplitude. They must, therefore, receive their full and unrestricted meaning. Books and manuscripts must, therefore, be deemed to refer to any kind of books or manuscripts so long as they are not intended for sale so as to entitle the assessee under clause (xii) to the exemption of the total value thereof. We are in respectful agreement with the views expressed therein. Hence, we hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption from wealth -tax in respect of the library books under S. 5 (1) (xii) of the Act. 4. In view of the above, we, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Question answered in the affirmative.