TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e - the petitioners' contention that watery coconut is a separate class and distinct commodity from coconut in absence of any specific classification by the legislature, cannot be accepted. Watery coconut is not a fruit but is an oil seed within the meaning of clause (vi) of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, taxable at 4% as specified in item No.(viii) therein - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - Writ Petition No.5013 of 1999 And Writ Petition No.1296 of 1995 - - - Dated:- 19-5-2017 - Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. For The Petitioners : Mr. Neelabh Dubey, Advocate. For The Respondents : Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocate. C.A.V. Order 1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in both the writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The question posed for consideration in these writ petitions is, whether watery coconut is a fruit covered by Entry 54 of Schedule I of the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Act, 1994. 3. The petitioners herein challenge the levy of tax on watery coconut holding it to be the oil seed rejecting the claim of the petitioners that it is exempted from tax, as the same is inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1974) 34 STC 103 (SC) . According to him, Entry 54 of Schedule-I is ambiguous and therefore the benefit of ambiguity should be given to the assessee as such, the orders passed by the two authorities assessing the watery coconut as oil seed and charging tax at the rate of 4%, deserve to be set aside, as coconut is a fruit within the meaning of Entry 54 of Schedule-I of the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Act, 1994. 6. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Page 4 of 11 State/respondents, opposing the submissions of Mr. Neelabh Dubey, would submit that watery coconut has been treated to be an oil seed and it is not fruit and therefore it is chargeable, as an oil seed as per the Entry. Relying upon P.A. Thillai Chidambara Nadar's case (supra) and Indo International Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh (1981) 47 STC 359 (SC) , he would further submit that primary object of taxation statute is to raise revenue and resort would not have been to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms or expressions used but their popular meaning has to be considered. Further relying upon the decision of the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the Legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter. 13. Likewise, in the matter of Sales Tax Commissioner v. Modi Sugar Mills AIR 1961 SC 1047, p. 1051 , the Supreme Court speaking through Shah, J, has held that In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Nor can taxing statutes be interpreted on any presumptions or assumptions. The court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any assumed deficiency. 14. In the matter of Martand Dairy and Farm v. Union of India AIR 1975 SC 1492, p. 1494 : (1975) 4 SCC 313 , Justice K. Iyer, J, observed: Taxation consideration may stem from administrative experience and other factors of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with approval by the Supreme Court in P.A. Thillai Chidambara Nadar (supra) and it has been held as under: - 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 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 culinery 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 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] CLR (Ex) 122, (which decision was appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ried coconut or copra and, therefore, it cannot be held that water coconuts are outside the scope of the entry. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the report read as follows: - 4. In this context, it is necessary for us to refer to the decision of this Court in Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Coconut Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), on which strong reliance has been placed by the High Court. In that case this Court was concerned with the entry as contained in the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The entry therein merely contained coconuts in the Third Schedule and tender coconuts in the Fourth Schedule which are useful only for drinking purposes which was exempt from tax. An explanation was added to the Third Schedule to state that the expression coconuts would mean fresh or dried coconuts, shelled or unshelled including copra, but excluding tender coconuts. Again by another amendment another explanation was added to state that the expression coconuts in the Schedule would mean dried coconuts, shelled or unshelled, including copra but excluding tender coconuts. Thus this Court was concerned in that case with two sets of entries - one contained in the Central Sales Tax Act, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dry fruits including pind khajur and coconut. Coconut includes dry coconut as well as watery coconut as it has been held by the Supreme Court that watery coconut becomes dried coconut after some point of time. Therefore, the petitioners' contention that watery coconut is a separate class and distinct commodity from coconut in absence of any specific classification by the legislature, cannot be accepted. Thus, it has rightly been held as oil seed by the State authorities which is based upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Popular Trading Co.'s case (supra) and Ganpatlal Lakhotia (supra). 25. In the light of the discussion made herein-above, it is quite vivid that watery coconut is not a fruit but is an oil seed within the meaning of clause (vi) of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, taxable at 4% as specified in item No.(viii) therein. Therefore, the State authorities have acted absolutely within their jurisdiction in holding the coconut to be an oil seed and charging accordingly. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding recorded by the taxing authorities. Both the writ petitions deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
