S.R. And Company vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 December, 1977
6. Those decisions are not of much value excepting the decision of this court in State of Madras v. M. P. Rajan and Company [1973] 32 S.T.C. 256, to which we have made reference, to decide the question before us. The words used, namely, "reading books including text-books", if we may say so, are not happily worded in its first part. We should understand "reading books" as "books for reading" which would also mean books meant for reading. This we think is a reasonable view to take on the words used. If we adopt that view, there may be various types of books which would not fall within the expression "books for reading" such as diaries or copying books and similar books which, in the widest amplitude of the word "books", may fall within, that expression. The limitations that have been introduced in interpreting the words in item 22 of the schedule to the notification must be those arising from the words used in that item. Such limitations must, therefore, flow exclusively from the qualification of books as those meant for reading and nothing else. We have indicated earlier in this judgment that neither Section 17 of the Act under which the notification was issued nor the preamble to the notification gave any indication whatever which necessitate further restrictions being given to the expression "books". We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that books meant for reading would fall within item 22 of the schedule to the notification. Whether the books would be read by the general public at large or only by a section of the public is of no moment. There may be persons who are interested in sports who may read very many books on a particular game which others may not care to open. There may be books on abstract subjects which also would be read by even more limited classes of persons and to say they are not reading books as explained by us as meaning "books for reading" would be to give an unnecessarily limited meaning to item 22 as it is worded, which is unjustified. No doubt, dealing with an exemption the assessee relying on that exemption will have to prove that the exemption applies in order to get the benefit of the exemption ; but this does not mean that we must give a greater restriction to the natural meaning which arises from the words used in the notification. It is a well-known principle that when a legislature or a rule-making authority speaks, we must gather its meaning and what was intended primarily and in the first instance from the words used. There are several refinements to this aspect and one of those is that words used in a taxing statute must be understood in their natural sense and not, according to any technical sense, a principle too well-established to need quoting of authority. We do not see why the same principle must not be applied to an exemption notification, for, a taxing statute itself has to be construed according to its words and before the revenue can tax a person, the revenue has to establish that the tax falls within the four corners of the statute; in other words, within the import of the statute as stated by the words used in the statute. The same principle must apply to an exemption and we have to take the ordinary meaning of the words "reading books". "Reading books" is not, as we said, a happy expression because it does not appear to be a very proper way of stating what was meant. That is why we stated that what is meant is "books for reading" which are the words used in the notification in Kerala. No other meaning can be given to it. Under this expression will not fall many books in the general sense of the term "books", because the notification itself qualified "books" by indicating that books are those meant for reading. We have already given two illustrations that will not fall under that category and we can mention a third one like a picture book. It is not correct to say that when we look at pictures in a book, we are reading the books. A picture book may not, therefore, fall within the expression "reading books". But we do not wish to commit ourselves on this aspect and would be content with the first two exemptions, one which was upheld by this court and the other also held to be outside the similar notification by another decision.