The words of a taxing statute must be construed in their natural sense. One should read fairly the language which has been used. Ordinarily the popular or common sense meaning has to be preferred than the technical or scientific meaning.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the demand of Entry tax by the letter dated 18-2-1998 (Annexure-F) by the respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Government company. It is manufacturing iron and steel in its Plant at Bhilai. It is using high silica lime stone as fluxing material in blast furnace process. It is also using low silica lime stone in manufacturing steel by a new technique with the use of convertors. The two kinds of lime are brought by the petitioner within the local area of Bhilai. The petitioner was paying entry tax as per M. P. Sthaniya Kshetra-Me-Mal-Ke Parvesh-Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Entry-Tax Act), at the rate of 1% on high Silica lime stone. It was paying this tax at the rate of 0. 5% on low silica lime stone under the residuary entry.

( 3 ) BY notification dated 2-2-1994 (Annexure-A) issued under Section 4-A of the Act, entry tax on lime stone was raised to 10%. The petitioner started paying entry tax at the enhanced rate on high silica lime but continued to pay this tax at the rate of 0. 5% on low silica lime. The assessments of the petitioner to entry tax up to the year 1993-94 were completed on this basis. By letter dated 6-8-1997 the Commercial Tax Officer asked the petitioner to pay entry tax on low silica lime also at the rate of 10%. The petitioner by its reply dated 11-8-1997 pointed out that it is not liable to pay entry tax at the enhanced rate on low-silica lime. But by the impugned letter dated 18-2-1998 (Annexure-F) the petitioner has been asked to pay entry tax on low silica lime stone also treating it as lime stone from the year 1994-95 to 31-12-1997. The demand for the difference is Rs. 13,33,40,579/ -.

( 4 ) THE petitioner's case is that in the Commercial world there is a proper distinction between high silica lime stone and low silica lime stone and the two are recognised as distinct commodities with a distinct use. The departmental authorities have also recognised the distinction between the two. Therefore, now they cannot claim entry-tax at the rate of 10% on low silica lime stone brought by the petitioner within the local area of Bhilai. The prayer is that this demand be quashed.

( 5 ) THE case of the respondents is that the words lime stone have been used in the notification in generic sense. There is only one category of lime stone. There are not two categories as contended by the petitioner. Low silica lime stone is also lime stone and is used in manufacturing iron and steel. It is also liable to entry-tax at the rate of 10%. The demand has been raised on the basis of the returns submitted by the petitioner regarding the quantity and the price of the low silica lime stone brought within the local area by the petitioner.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for both the sides were heard. The argument of Shri Chaphekar, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, the distinction between the two categories of lime stone is real and substantial and it is recognised in the Commercial world and also by the taxing-authorities. That being so, the demand of the enhanced rate treating low silica lime stone as covered by the words "lime stone" in the notification is unjustified and illegal. The other argument is that the respondent No. 1 has not made fresh assessments for each year and without reassessment the demand is illegal and without jurisdiction. There should first be reassessment and then a demand could be raised. On the other hand it is contended by Shri Awasthy, the Dy. Government Advocate, that the taxing provision has used the words "lime stone" and in their natural meaning the two species of lime are covered therein. The reply to the second objection is that the rate of the tax has been revised on the admitted facts. The figures and the data given in the returns of the petitioner have been used to determine the fresh demand and as such there was no nee