JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J.
1. The question involved in the present revision is whether sales tax on the sale of eucalyptus trees by the applicant who is neither the owner of any forest nor an importer of any wood /timber can be levied in view of the notification No. 6071 dated 30th September, 1983.
2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1986-87. The applicant, a private limited company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act is registered under the U.P. and Central Sales Tax Act and carried on the business of manufacture and sale of cement pipes as well as sale of jute bags etc. The sale of cement pipes, jute bags etc. are not in dispute in the present revision as its account books have been accepted. The Assessing Officer imposed sales tax to the tune of Rs. 21,876/- on the sale of trees made by the applicant for a sum of Rs. 1,82,300/-, which is the subject matter of the present revision. All the three authorities have upheld the levy of sales tax on the sale of trees made by the applicant on the basis of Heard Shri Bharatji Agrawal, the Senior Counsel for the applicant and the Learned Standing Counsel for the Department.
3. The Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that no such tax on the sale of eucalyptus trees can be validly levied on the applicant in view of the aforesaid notification No. 6071 dated 30th of September, 1983.
4. The relevant Entry of the said Notification reads as follows:-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. A bare perusal of the aforesaid notification shows that the point of tax is sale (i) by the Forest Department; (ii) U.P. Forest Corporation; or (iii) by private owner of forest; or (iv) by importer. The case of the department is that the sale of the eucalyptus trees is liable to be taxed at the point of sale as by private owner of forest". Disputing the above, it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that he is not owner of any private forest. Therefore, the crux of the controversy is whether the applicant can be treated as a private owner of forest, to fasten liability on it. The Tribunal has correctly found that the sale of eucalyptus was sale of goods within the meaning of U.P. Sales Tax Act in as much as after cutting the trees they were removed by the purchaser. It is noticeable as stated by the Tribunal that in the present days with the advancement of science and agriculture, the people grow the trees to maintain ecological balance and they adopt scientific method to grow trees. Such trees are being got planted and grown by different government and non government organizations and therefore the groups of such trees is treated as forests. Forest can be formed by the spontaneous or natural growth of trees. If that is so, it amounts to giving a restricted meaning to word "forest" and it would be against the intention of the legislature as the trees which have been planted and grown with the scientific and agriculture advancement will escape sales tax in view of the above notification. Therefore, the intention of the legislature in the said notification was to cover all such trees which have been grown by persons in huge quantities. On the above premises, the Tribunal upholds the sale tax liability on the dealer. Challenging the correctness and legality of the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal the present revision has been filed. It was contended by the learned counsel of the applicant that the Tribunal swayed away by irrelevant considerations while interpreting the phrase "sale by private owner of forest". The dealer is not a private owner of a forest. Nor the plantation of eucalyptus trees at the manufacturing site or at work place will make the dealer a private owner of forest. The words "private owner of forest" is not defined under the U.P. Sales Tax Act or in the Rules framed thereunder or in any notification. Therefore, these words should be interpreted, as they are understood in common parlance.
6. 'Forest' has been defined in Randum House Dictionary page 555 as follows:-
"A forest is an extensive area, preserving some or all of its primitive mildness and usually having game or wild animals in it."
7. Similarly, 'forest' has been defined in Stout's Judicial Dictionary Vol. II page 1079 as follows:--
"Forest is a place privileged by royal authority or by prescription for peaceful abiding and nourishment of beasts or birds of the forest"
8. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary Vol. I page 890 'forest' has been defined as follows :--
"a dense growth of trees and underbrush covering a large tract of land, an extensive plant community of shrubs and trees in all stages of growth and decay with a close canopy having the quality of perpetuation or development into an ecological climax, such a growth or community together with the land on which it stands."
9. A full bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Janu Chandra Waghmare and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra interpreted the expression "forest* under the Entry No. 19 of List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India and has held that the expression "forest" in its normal and popular connotation includes all that case with it, such as, trees with fruits on them, shrubs, bushes, woody vegetation, under growth, Pastures, honey combs attached to a tree, juices derived on trees, things embodied on other like mines and quarries etc.
10. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Volume -I gives the meaning of forest, which reads as under:-
"(1) An extensive tract of land covered with trees and undergrowth, sometimes intermingled with pasture;
(2) Law- A woodland district usually belonging to the King, set apart for hunting wild beasts and games, etc. ...;
(3) A wild uncultivated waste."
One of the meaning is "a wild uncultivated waste."
11. To find out appropriate solution of the contro