Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
P.A. THILLAI CHIDAMBARA NADAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE ADDL. APPELLATE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER. MADURAI & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT29/07/1985
BENCH:
TULZAPURKAR, V.D.
BENCH:
TULZAPURKAR, V.D.
MISRA RANGNATH
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
CITATION:
1985 AIR 1644 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 339
1985 SCC (4) 30 1985 SCALE (2)291
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1991 SC 494 (5)
ACT:
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959
’Coconut’ - Whether ’fresh fruit’ or ’vegetable’ -
Whether exempt from levy of sales tax.
Words & Phrases
’Coconut’ - Whether ’fruit’ or ’vegetable’ - Tamil Nadu
General Sales Tax Act 1959.
HEADNOTE:
Under G.P. No. 1764 dated 5.4.1960 as amended on
22.12.1960 issued under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax
Act, 1959 the Government had exempted "all sales of
vegetables (other than the dried and dehydrated vegetables)
fresh fruits, betel and plantain leaves, flowers, eggs, meat
and fish (other than canned meat and fish) from the levy of
sales tax under the Act."
The High Court, held that since ripened coconut in
which the appellant was dealing as a grocer, could not be
regarded as a "fresh fruit" or a "vegetable", the
appellant’s sales turn-over in coconut in each of the
Assessment Years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 was liable to
sales tax and includible in its taxable turn-over.
Dismissing the Appeals :
^
HELD: (by the Court-per Tulzapurkar, Sabyasachi
Mukharji and Ranganth Misra JJ.)
1. The High Court was right in its conclusion that the
appellant’s sales turnover in coconut was not exempt from
the levy of sales tax. [343 E, 344 G]
2. In interpreting items in statutes like the Excise
Tax Acts or Sales Tax Acts, whose primary object is to raise
revenue and for which purpose they classify diverse products
articles and substances resort should be had not to the
scientific and technical meaning of the terms or expressions
used but to their popular meaning, that is to say, the
meaning attached to them by those dealing in them. [342 C,
343 H]
340
Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
Tax, Uttar Pradesh [1981] 3 S.C.R. 294 referred to.
(Per Tulzapurkar, J.)
1. It cannot be disputed that a coconut would be a
’fruit’ in the botanical sense but unless it can be said to
be a ’fresh fruit’ it will not fall within the exemption
notification. Similarly a coconut may be available in a
vegetable market but because of that it does not become a
’vegetable. It is well-known that the kernel of the coconut
is used as an ingredient in the culinary preparations for
adding taste to the food on the table but it is hardly used
as a substantial article of food on the table. ’Fresh
fruits’ and ’vegetables’ being household articles of
everyday use will have to be construed in their popular
sense, meaning the sense in which every householder will
understand them. A householder when asked to bring some
’fresh fruit’ and some ’vegetable’ for the evening meal
would obviously not bring coconut. [342 F-343 A]
His Majesty the King v. Planters Nut and Chocolate
Company Limited. [1951] C.L.R. (Ex.) 122 and Commissioner of
Sales Tax v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh [1967] 2 S.C.R. 720
referred to.
2. The legislative history of the earlier exemption
notifications issued by the State Government are of no
assistance to the appellant. All these earlier notifications
clearly show that coconut was always subject to sales tax
till G.P. No. 1764 dated April 5, 1960 was issued under the
1959 Act. There is no material to show that the Government
had changed its view and exempted coconut from taxation
under the 1959 Act. Under the earlier notifications merely
’fruits’ had been exempted from levy of sales tax and since
coconut would have come within the category of fruits, the
same was expressly excluded from the exemption thereby
making the same thereof liable to tax. [343 B-D]
(Per Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.)
1. It cannot be disputed that ripened coconut will not
be a "fresh fruit" in terms of the said notification. One
cannot be sure on the aspect, that ripened coconut cannot be
considered to be vegetable. Whether ripened coconut can be
considered to be ’vegetable’ or ’fruit’ in any part of India
will depend upon the evidence available. Tastes vary, habits
differ, and food served,
341
prepared and consumed at the tables in different parts of
the country also vary. Therefore, it is safer not to rest
the decision on subjective ideas if possible. [344 B-C]
2. It is for the assessee who claims exemption to
adduce evidence that a particular article is an exempted
item, and if he cannot or if he fails to do so, the revenue
may proceed on its basis. In such a situation, the assessee
should have such an opportunity. That opportunity cannot be
foreclosed. It cannot categorically be said that ripened
coconut could never be considered to be ’vegetable’. In this
case the assessee has adduced no evidence. [344 D-E]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1434-
35 of 1973.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.1972 of the
Madras High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 1439 and 3425 of
1970.
AND
Civil Appeal No. 1003 of 1975.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.1974 of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
Madras High Court in T.C. No. 71 of 1974.
J. Ramamurthy for the Appellant.
S.T.Desai and A.V.Rangam for the Respondent.
The following Judgments of the Court were delivered :
TULZAPUKAR, J. Whether a coconut (neither tender nor
dried but a ripened coconut with or without husk) is a
"fresh fruit" or a "vegetable" so as to earn exemption from
the levy of sales tax under G.G. No. 1764 dated 5.4.1960 as
amended on 22.12.1960 issued under the Tamil Nadu General
Sales Tax Act, 1959 is the question raised in these appeals.
The High Court has held that under the aforesaid
notification the Government had exempted "all sales of
vegetables (other than the dried and dehydrated vegetables)
fresh fruits, betal and plantain leaves, flowers, eggs, meat
and fish (other than canned meat and fish)" from the levy of
sales tax under the 1959 Act but since a ripened coconut in
which the appellant was dealing as a
342
grocer, could not be regarded as a "fresh fruit" or a
"vegetable" the appellant’s sales turn over in coconuts in
each of the Assessment Years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70
was liable to sales tax and includible in his taxable
turnover. It is this view of the High Court which has been
challenged before us by counsel for the appellant-assessee.
The canon of construction to be invoked in these types
of statutes has been repeatedly enunciated in several
decisions of this Court but it is not necessary to refer to
all of them. In Indo international Industries v.
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh [1981] 3 S.C.R.
294, this court ruled thus:
"It is well-settled that in interpreting items in
statutes like the Excise Tax Acts or Sales Tax
Acts, whose primary object is to raise revenue and
for which purpose they classify diverse products,
articles and substances resort should be had not
to the scientific and technical meaning of the
terms or expressions used but to their popular
meaning, that is to say, the meaning attached to
them by those dealing in them. If any term or
expression has been defined in the enactment then
it must be understood in the sense in which it is
defined but in the absence of any definition being
given in the enactment the meaning of the term in
common parlance or commercial parlance has to be
adopted."
If regard be had to this rule of construction, the
question raised will have to be answered against the
appellant. On the first aspect of the question it can not be
disputed that a coconut would be a ’fruit’ in the botanical
sense but unless it can be said to be a ’fresh fruit’ it
will not fall within the exemption notification. Similarly a
coconut may be available in a vegetable market but because
of that it does not become a ’vegetable’. It is well-known
that the kernel of the coconut is used as an ingredient in
the culinary preparations for adding taste to the food but
it is hardly used as a substantial article of food on the
table. The concerned articles namely, ’fresh fruits’ and
’vegetables’ being household articles of everyday use for
the table these will have to be construed in their popular
sense meaning the sense in which every householder will
understand them. Viewed from this angle, the most apposite
test would be the one adopted in the case of His Majesty the
King v. Planters Nut and Chocolate Company Limited [1951]
C.L.R. (Ex.)
343
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
122 (which decision was approved by this court in
Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh)
[1967] 2 S.C.R. 720. Would a house holder when asked to
bring home some ’fresh fruit’ and some ’vegetable’ for the
evening meal bring coconut? Obviously, the answer is in the
negative.
Counsel for the appellant sought to rely upon the
legislative history by referring some of the earlier
exemption notifications issued by the State Government under
the earlier Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 which were
operative till the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was
passed but in our view such reliance is of no avail to the
appellant. In the first place all these earlier
notifications clearly show that coconut was always subject
to sales tax till G.O. No. 1764 dated 5.4.1960 was issued
under the 1959 Act and there is no material to show that the
Government had changed its view and exempted coconut from
taxation under the 1959 Act. Secondly, under the earlier
notifications merely ’fruits’ had been exempted from levy of
sales tax and since coconut would have come within the
category of fruits the same as expressly excluded from the
exemption thereby making the sale thereof liable to tax. The
legislative history, therefore, is of no assistance to the
appellant. Similarly, how coconut was dealt with under the
amendment introduced by the Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1970 by
which coconut was brought under single point taxation would
be immaterial.
In view of what is stated above we feel that the High
Court was right in its conclusion that the appellant’s sales
turnover in coconut was not exempt from the levy of the
sales tax. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with no
order as to costs.
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Under G.O. No 1764 dated
5.4.1960, as amended on 22.12.1960, issued under the
Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, ’fresh fruit’ and
’vegetable’ are exempt from the levy of sales tax. Whether
ripened coconut with or without husk can be considered to be
’vegetable’ is the question in these appeals.
I respectfully agree with my learned brother
Tulzapurkar J. that principles to be adopted in deciding
that question are well-settled i.e. in interpreting items in
statutes whose primary object is to raise revenue and for
which purpose they classify diverse products, articles and
substances, resort should be had not to the scientific and
technical meaning of the terms of the expressions used, but
to their popular meaning, that is to
344
say, the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them.
Fresh fruit’ or vegetable’ has not been defined in the Act.
My learned brothers have come to the conclusion that it
cannot be disputed that ripened coconut will not be a ’fresh
fruit’ in terms of the said notification, I respectfully
agree. But my learned brothers have also found that ripened
coconut cannot be considered to be ’vegetable’, I am not so
sure on this aspect. Whether ripened coconut can be
considered to be a ’vegetable’ or ’fruit’ in any part of
India will depend upon the evidence available. Tastes vary,
habits differ and food served, prepared and consumed at the
tables in different parts of the country also vary.
Therefore, it is safer not to rest our decision on our
subjective ideas, if possible. I, however, respectfully
agree with the conclusion reached by my learned brothers
that the appeals should be dismissed.
It is well-settled that it is for the assessee who
claims exemption to adduce evidence that a particular
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
article is an exempted item and if he cannot or if he fails
to do so, then the revenue may proceed on its basis. In such
a situation, the assessee should have such an opportunity.
We cannot foreclose such an opportunity. We cannot
categorically say that ripened coconut could never be
considered to be ’vegetable’. But in this case the assessee
has adduced no evidence. In the premises, the assessee must
fail and I respectfully agree with the order proposed by my
learned brothers.
N.V.K. Appeals dismissed.
345