1984 PLP 208 (PTD)

(i) ................................. (ii) ................................. (iii) ................................. (iv) ................................. (v) ................................. (vi) Furniture, household utensil, apparel, provisions and other articles (excluding jewellery) intended for the personal or household use of the assesses." The Assessing Officer was of the view that motor car is not an article intended for personal use of the assesses only household articles fall under this provision. In appeal the learned Tribunal set aside this order. Mr. Waheed Farooqui, the learned counsel for the applicant has con tended that in the present case ejusdem generis rule will be applicable and only such articles will be exempted which could be categorised as furniture, household utensil, apparel and provisions. The main ground for challenging the order of the learned Tribunal is that the words of a general nature following specific and particular words should be construed as limited to things which are of same nature as those specified. Section 5(i) (vi) provides exemption from Wealth Tax in respect of furniture, household utensil, apparel, provisions and article intended for personal or household use. As the assets mentioned in it are not exhaustive the word 'other articles' was used. Such 'other articles' are exempted which are intended for the personal or household use of the assessee. The main emphasis therefore, seems to be that articles which are intended for personal or household use of the assesses are exempted from the Wealth Tax. The rule of ejusdem generic is a rule of construction and merely gives an aid to find out the meaning of a statutory provision. The object of section 5(i)(vi) seems to be to include such other articles which are intended for personal use. The preceding words namely furniture, household utensils and apparel will not restrict the meaning of the words intended for the personal or house hold use of the assessee. Therefore, the meaning of the words 'other articles' has to be interpreted in conjunction with the following words which qualify it. According to the learned counsel for the applicant the words 'other articles' will be restricted to only categories of assets mentioned earlier that would have been the intention of the Legislature then it was not necessary to qualify the words 'other articles' by the words "intended for household or personal use." If the ‑interpretation of the learned counsel is accepted then the words 'intended fox household or personal use of the assesses' will become redundant which is against the settled principle of interpretation. In these circumstances we find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant. We may, however, mention that during assessment the Assessing Officer would be justified in snaking an enquiry whether the car is intended for personal use or not. If he comes to the conclusion that the car for which exemption is claimed is not intended for personal or house hold use, then he would be within his jurisdiction to reject the claim for exemption in respect of such cars. The above conclusions seem to be supported by subsequent amendments made in the Act. By Finance Act, 1976, the following proviso was added to clause (vi): ‑ "Provided that where an assessee owns more than one car, only one car specified by him shall be so excluded from his net wealth." The Legislature, therefore, in the year 1976 permitted the assessee to claim exemption in respect of one car if he has more than one car. Again by Finance Ordinance, 1979 the aforestated proviso was substituted by the following proviso: "Provided that where the assesses owns a car the market value of which exceeds rupees one lakh, the value of such car in excess of rupees one lakh shall not be so excluded from his net wealth." Therefore a restriction has been placed that an assessee will be entitled to an exemption in respect of one car the market value of which does not exceed rupees one lakh but in case, where it exceeds, than, the value in excess of rupees one lakh shall be excluded from the net wealth. In view of these reasons we had earlier replied the question in the affirmative. M. Z. M. Question answered in affirmative.