Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal Nos. 4026 27 of 1987. From the judgment and order dated 10.9.1986 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P. No. 2191 and 413 of 1985. A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant in C.A. No. 4026 of 1987. G.L. Sanghi and J.R. Das for the Appellant in C.A. No. 4027 of 1987. S.N. Khare	 R.K. Sharma and T.C. Sharma for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH	 J. In these petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India	 petitioners seek special leave to appeal from the Judgment and order dated	 10.9.1986 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition 2919 of 1985 and Misc. Petition No. 413 of 1985 respectively. The appeals raise a short and interesting question whether stacks of "eucalyptus wood ' sold by the forest department after separating the "Ballies" and "poles" constitute and answer the description of 'Timber ' under entry 32 A of Part 11 of Schedule II to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1958 (The 'Act '). The High Court	 rejecting the appellant 's contention that what was sold	 being left overs after the extraction of "poles" and "Ballies" of Eucalyptus ' (Nilgiri) Trees	 was merely 'fire wood ' within the meaning of and attracting entry No. 12 of Part V of Schedule II of the Act	 held that the goods were 'Timber ' under the said entry 32 A. It was	 accordingly	 held that appellants were liable to pay sales tax at the rate of 16% ad valorem. 504 2. Special Leave is granted in both the cases. The appeals are taken up for final hearing	 heard and disposed of by this common judgment. We have heard Shri G.L. Sanghi	 Senior Counsel and Shri A.K. Sanghi for the appellants and Shri T.C. Sharma for the respondents . Though	 the notification inviting tenders and certain other documents appear to describes the goods variously as "eucalyputs fire wood stacks '. 	 "eucalyptus wood stacks"	 'Nilgiri fuel wood ' etc. 	 the nomenclature is not determinative or conclusive of the nature of the "goods" which will have to be determined by the application of certain well settled principles	 guiding the matter. Three entries as they then stood in the Schedule to the 'Act ' were pointed out by learned counsel as the possible alternatives: Schedule II Part II Entry 32 A: Timber. 16% PART V Entry 12 : Fire wood & charcoal . 3% Part Vl Entry I : All other goods not included in Schedule I or any other part of the Schedule . 10% Appellants contention urged before the High Court and reiterated before us was that what was sold were the leftovers and remnants of eucalyptus trees after the extraction of the substantial timber in the form of "poles" and "Ballies" and that even on the basis of what the forest department itself described the goods to be while putting the 'goods ' to tender	 the goods were 'fire wood heaps '. It was urged that having regard to the well known concept of what constitutes 'Timber ' the wood stacks sold could	 by no stretch of imagination	 be held to answer the description of 'Timber '. The wood sold	 it was said 505 "fire wood" or at all events	 plain 'wood ' not amounting to 'Timber ' or A 'firewood ' in which case the goods fall within the residuary entry. This contention did not find favour with the High Court. In a taxing statute words which are not technical expressions or words of art	 but are words of everyday use	 must be understood and given a meaning	 not in their technical or scientific sense	 but in a sense as under stood in common parlance i.e. "that sense which people conversant with the subject matter with which the statute is dealing	 would attribute to it". Such words must be understood in their 'popular sense '. The particular terms used by the legislature in the denomination of articles are to be understood according to the common	 commercial understanding of those terms used and not in their scientific and technical sense "for the legislature does not suppose our merchants to be naturalists or geologists or botonists". The expression 'Timber '	 it seems to us	 has an accepted and well recognised legal connotation and is nomen juris. It has also a popular meaning as a word of everyday use. In this case	 the two meanings to 'Timber ' the legal and the popular	 coalesce and are broadly subsumed in each other. In Honeywood vs Honeywood	 	 at p. 309. Sir George Jessel referred to what distinguishes and is "Timber": E "The question of what timber is depends	 first on general law	 that is	 the law of England; and secondly	 on the special custom of a locality. By the general rule of England	 oak	 ash and elm are timber	 provided they are of the age of 20 years and upwards	 provided also they are not so old as not to have a reasonable quantity of useable wood in them	 sufficient . to make a good post. Timber	 that is	 the kind of tree which may be called timber	 may be varied by local custom. There is what is called the custom of the country	 that is	 of a particular country or division of a country	 and it varies in two ways. First of all	 you may have trees called timber by the custom of the countrybeech in some countries	 hornbeam in others. and even whitethorn and black thorn	 and many other trees are considered timber in peculiar localities in addition to the ordinary timber trees. Then again	 in certain localities	 arising probably from the nature of the soil	 the trees of 506 even 20 years old are not necessarily timber	 but may go to 24 years	 or even to a later period	 I suppose	 if necessary; and in other places the test of when a tree becomes timber is not its age but its girth. " In Shantabal vs State of Bombay & Ors. ; this court	 referring to the distinctions between 'standing timber ' and 'tree ' referred to the following lexicographic meaning of 'timber ': "(30) Timber is well enough known to be "wood suitable for building houses	 bridges	 ships etc.	 whether on the tree or cut and seasoned". (Webster 's Collegiate Dictionary). It was	 accordingly	 held: Therefore	 "standing timber" must be a tree that is in a state fit for these purposes and	 further a tree that is meant to be converted into timber so shortly that it can already be looked upon as timber for all practical purposes even though it is still standing. (emphasis supplied) Legal Glossary	 (published by the Ministry of Company Affairs Law & Justice) gives this meaning of 'Timber ': "wood meant for building or such like use". In the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary	 the meaning of the word 'Timber ' is this: 'wood suitable for building or carpentry	 whether growing or cut: standing trees of oak	 ash	 elm	 (locality by custom) other kinds etc. (emphasis supplied) In words and phrases by John B. Saunders (Vol. 5) 'Timber ' is heed to be: 'Trees less than six inches in diameter have been said not to be timber. (emphasis supplied) 507 5. In its popular sense	 'timber ' is understood to be 'Imarathi Lakdi '. In a popular sense Timber ' has certain association of ideas: as to its size	 stability	 utility	 durability	 the unit or measure of quantity and of valuation etc. The question is whether by the standards of these popular connotations	 the 'wood stacks ' or 'wood heaps ' sold to	 and purchased by	 the appellants can be held to answer the popular notions of ' 'Timber ' '. When 'standing timber	 is sold as uncut tree different considerations may arise. The nature of the "wood" sold is described in the letter	 dated	 30.5.1985	 addressed by the Divisional Forest officer. The subject matter of the sale has been referred to as 'Nilgiri fuel wood '. The wood was offered for sale in stacks of the size of l x 1. 25 x 2 mtrs. With each piece of a length of 1.25 meters and a girth	 at the thinner end	 of not less than 10 cms. They were sold not by volume or by the number of pieces. The wood was offered with a particular kind of user in mind	 viz	 as a source of industrial raw material for 'pulp ' in the manufacture of synthetic fibre. As pointed out by the High Court	 in the returns filed by the respondents	 it was mentioned that eucalyptus plantation was a recent development and promoted with the specific purpose for use in specifically in the preparation of pulp and sold throughout the state with this specific object. Respondents in their endeavor to controvert appellants ' contention that the wood sold was "fire wood" went on to say that while stacks of fire wood of similar sizes fetch prices between Rs.20 to Rs.80 each	 the stacks of the eucalyptus wood on the other hand	 fetch to Rs.300 to Rs.600 per stack and that	 therefore	 nobody uses eucalyptus as "fire wood". The High Court	 felt pursuaded to the view that the 'wood ' sold did not admit of being described as "fire wood". It reasoned: "Fire wood in common commercial parlance and as understood by the trade as well as by the consuming public	 is not just any wood that can be used as logs of fuel. Every kind of wood is potential fire wood	 for you can start a fire with any wood. But this is not the test. Firewood is wood of a kind which has attained notoriety as fuel. Nobody who sells fire wood debarks the wood before sale. Nobody who buys firewood requires them to be shaved and debarked. Purchasers may desire the wood to be cut to size. But that is all. There may be eccentric sellers and eccentric buyers who may indulge their fancies in specialities in firewood. 508 But that	 again	 is not the test. Where the wood is not	 in the normally accepted commercial practice	 firewood	 and more especially	 where the wood is sold and purchased subject to specifications which conduce the wood to particular purposes other than fuel	 which is the case in the present two revisions	 the goods sold cannot be regarded as firewood. " While something	 perhaps	 could be argued in support of this reasoning	 what however	 emerges is that the finding that the goods was 'Timber ' appears to have been reached as a necessary consequence and logical corollory of the goods not being 'fire wood ': If the wood is not "fire wood"	 it need not necessarily and for that reason alone be 'Timber '. All wood is not timber as	 indeed	 all wood is not 'fire wood ' either though perhaps it may not be incorrect to say that both 'firewood ' and 'Timber ' are 'wood ' in its generic sense. The High Court further reasoned: " . It has also been mentioned that timber is obtained by cutting standing trees. It may be hard wood timber or soft wood timber. Eucalyptus trees are covered by soft wood timber . " " . The petitioners offered to purchase the goods which could be used for manufacture of woodware	 furniture	 etc. as well as manufacture of Pulp. The petitioners deal in timber . Here again	 pushed to its logical conclusions	 the reasoning incurs the criticism of proceeding to determine the nature of the 'goods ' by the test of the use to which they are capable of being put. The 'user test ' is logical; but is	 again	 inconclusive. The particular use to which an article can be applied in the hands of a special consumer is not determinative of the nature of the goods. Even as the description of the goods by the authorities of the forest department who called them varyingly as 'eucalyptus fuel wood ' 'eucalyptus wood heap ' etc. is not determinative	 the fact that the purchasers were dealers in timber is also not conclusive. The High Court also observed: ". . The length of the pieces is not relevant criteria to 509 determine whether the wood is timber or not. The goods A offered for sale were eucalyptus wood stacks . . Length is	 no doubt a relevant consideration; but it is a relative concept and associated with the idea of utility. A piece of rope	 it is said	 is itself a rope	 provided It serves the purpose of one. The question is not really whether "Eucalyptus"(Nilgiri) Tree is or is not a 'Timber ' tree. By every reckoning it is. Eucalyptus is a large	 rapid growing	 evergreen tree of the myrtle family	 originally a native of Austrailia	 Tasmania and Malaysis. There are a large number of its species. The ideal species under ideal conditions	 it would appear	 reaches a height of 370 ft. with a girth of nearly 25 ft. Apart from its utility as a source of gum and medicinal oils	 the slow growing species are especially known for the quality of its timber marked for strength size and durability (See: Encyclopaedia Britannica: 1968: Vol. 8 page 806 & 807; Encyclopaedia American: Vol. 10 pages 648 & 649). But the question is whether the subsidiary parts of the tree sold in heaps after the 'Ballies ' and 'poles are separated	 can be called 'Imarathi Lakdi ' or 'Timber '. We think	 it would be somewhat of a strain on the popular meaning of the expression 'Timber ' with the sense size and utility implicit in the idea. to call these wood heaps 'Timber '	 meant or fit for building purposes. Persons conversant with the subject matter will not call these wood heaps 'Timber ' whatever else the goods might	 otherwise	 be. It would appear that at one stage the forest department itself opined that the 'goods ' were not timber; but only "fire wood". We must	 however	 add that no tests of general validity applicable to or governing all cases can at all be laid down. The point to note and emphasis is that all parts or portions of even a timber tree need not necessarily be 'Timber '. Some parts are timber	 some parts merely "fire wood" and yet others merely 'wood '. Having regard to the nature and description of the wood in the present case	 we think	 the 'wood heaps ' are not susceptible to be or admit of being called 'Timber ' with all the concomitants and associations of that idea. Perhaps	 different considerations might apply if	 say	 the pieces of eucalyptus wood are of a longer length or of a higher girth. Differences of degree can bring about differences of kind. 7. What emerges therefore	 is that the goods in question are not 'Timber ' within the meaning and for purposes of entry 32A of the Act. In regard to the question as to what other description the goods answer and which other entry they fall under	 learned counsel on both 510 sides submitted that	 if we hold that entry 32 A is not the appropriate one	 the matter be remitted to the High Court for a fresh consideration of the matter in the light of such other or further material the parties may place before the High Court. We accept this submission. In the result	 these appeals are allowed in part and the finding of the High Court that the goods in question fall within and attract entry 32 A of Part II of Schedule II of the 'Act ' is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for an appropriate decision as to which other entry the goods in question attract. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. We might advert to yet another submission of Sri Sanghi. He submitted that consistent with the finding that the 'goods ' do not attract tax at 16% under the said entry 32A respondents cannot retain the tax already collected at 16%. Learned Counsel submitted that even if the goods are said to fall under the Residuary entry	 the rate of tax would only be 10% and that respondents	 accordingly	 should be directed to refund to the appellants sums equivalent to 6% of the tax	 wherever tax at 16% has been collected	 without waiting for a decision on remand as indeed	 there would be no prospect of the goods attracting tax at a rate higher than 10% now that entry 32 A is held inapplicable. This	 in our opinion is a reasonable request and requires to be accepted. The concerned Respondents are directed to refund to the appellants ' sums equivalent to 6% wherever the taxes are already recovered at 16%. In the circumstances	 there will be no order as to costs. R.S.S. Appeals allowed.

% Words and Phrases 'Timer ' 'Fire ' wood ' Meaning of. The Forest Department of Madhya Pradesh sold to the appellants	 who are dealers in timber	 stacks of "eucalyptus wood" after separating the "Ballies" and "poles". Sales tax at the rate of 16% ad valorem leviable on the sale of 'timber ' under Entry 32A of part II of Schedule Il of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act	 1958	 was sought to be recovered from the appellants on the grounds that what was sold was 'timber '. The levy was challenged by the appellants in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court rejected the appellants ' contention that what was sold	 being left overs after the extraction of "poles" and "Ballies"	 was merely 'fire wood ' within the meaning of and attracting entry No. 12 of Part V of Schedule II of the Act and thus liable to sales tax only at the rate of 3%. The High Court upheld the levy on the view that the goods were 'Timber ' and attracted entry 32A of Part II. The High Court took the view that where the wood was not	 in the normally accepted commercial practice	 fire wood	 and more especially	 where the wood was sold and purchased subject to specifications which conduce the wood to particular purposes other than fuel	 the goods sold cannot be regarded as firewood. The appellants ' contentions reiterated before this Court were (t) that what was sold were the left overs and remnants	 (2) that the forest department had itself described the goods in the tender notice as 'fire wood heaps '	 (3) that the wood stacks could	 by no stretch of imagination	 be held to answer the well known concept of 'Timber '	 and (4) that the wood sold was 'fire wood ' or at all events	 plain 'wood ' not amounting to 'Timber ' or 'firewood ' in which case it fell within the residuary entry. 502 The respondents	 on the other hand	 urged that the 'wood ' sold did not admit of being described as 'fire wood ' because nobody used eucalyptus wood as fire wood due to its very high cost. Allowing the appeal in part and remitting the matter to the High Court it was	 ^ HELD: (I) The finding of the High Court that the goods was 'Timber ' appears to have been reached as necessary consequence and logical corollory of the goods not being 'fire wood '. If the wood is pot "fire wood" it need not necessarily and for that reason alone be 'Timber '. All wood is not timber as	 indeed	 all wood is not 'fire wood ' either though perhaps it may not be incorrect to say that both 'firewood ' and 'Timber ' are 'wood ' in its generic sense.[508C] (2) All parts of portions of even a timber tree need not necessarily be 'Timber '. Some parts are timber	 some parts merely 'fire wood '	 and yet others merely 'wood '. [509F] (3) In a taxing statute words which are not technical expressions or words of art	 but are words of everyday use	 must be understood and given a meaning	 not in their technical or scientific sense	 but in a sense as understood in common parlance i.e. "that sense which people conversant with the subject matter with which the statute is dealing	 would attribute to it. " Such words must be understood in their popular sense. [505B C] (4) The use to which the 'goods ' are capable of being put is not determinative of the nature of the goods; nor even the nomenclature of the goods as given by till theoretic is determinative. The fact that the purchasers were dealers in timber is also not conclusive. [508G] (5) The expression 'Timber ' has an accepted and well recognised legal connotation and is nomen juris. It has also a popular meaning as a word of everyday use. In its popular sense	 'timber ' is understood to be 'imarathi Lakdi '. In a popular sense 'Timber ' has certain association of ideas: as to its size	 stability	 utility	 durability	 the unit of measure of quantity and of valuation etc. [505D; 507A] (6) Having regard. to the size	 nature and description of the wood in the present case	 the 'wood heaps ' were not susceptible to be or did not admit of being called 'Timber ' with all the concomitants and associations of that idea. [509F] 503 (7) No tests of general validity applicable to or governing all A cases can at all be laid down. Perhaps different considerations might apply if	 say	 the pieces of eucalyptus wood are of a longer length or of a higher girth. Differences of degree can bring about differences of kind. [509E G] Shantabai vs State of Bombay	 ; ; referred to.