http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: RAMAVATAR BUDHAIPRASAD ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ASSISTANT SALES TAX OFFICER, AKOLA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/1961

BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA DAS, S.K. HIDAYATULLAH, M. SHAH, J.C.

CITATION:  1961 AIR 1325            1962 SCR  (1) 279  CITATOR INFO :  R          1962 SC 660  (4)  RF         1962 SC1621  (19,41)  F          1963 SC 351  (2)  F          1967 SC1454  (4)  F          1971 SC  65  (5)  RF         1973 SC  78  (5)  F          1974 SC 390  (2)  R          1974 SC1362  (3)  RF         1976 SC2463  (15)  R          1977 SC 597  (33)  F          1977 SC1132  (3)  R          1977 SC1638  (2)  R          1979 SC 300  (3)  R          1981 SC1079  (4)  F          1989 SC 622  (4)  RF         1989 SC1011  (9)

ACT: Sales  Tax-’Betel leaves’, if taxable--’Vegetabls’,  Meaning of--Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (C.   P. XXI of 1947), s. 6(1)(2), Second Schedule, Items Nos. 6  and 36.

HEADNOTE: The petitioners who were dealers in betel leaves were asses- sed  to sales tax by the Assistant Sales Tax  Officer  under the  provisions of the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act,  1947. The  contention of the petitioners was that under s. 6  read with  the second schedule of the Act betel leaves  were  not taxable.   Under S. 6 of the Act articles mentioned  in  the said  Schedule were exempt from Sales Tax and  articles  not mentioned  were  taxable.   There  were  two  items  in  the Schedule, namely, item 6, "vegetables", and item 36,  "betel leaves",  but  subsequently item No. 36 was  omitted  by  an amendment of the Act. Held, that the use of two distinct and different items i.e., "vegetables"  and "betel leaves" and the subsequent  removal of  betel  leaves from the Schedule were indicative  of  the Legislature’s  intention of not exempting betel leaves  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

taxation.  The word "vegetable" must be interpreted not in a technical  sense but in its popular sense as  understood  in common  language i.e., denoting a class of vegetables  which are grown in a kitchen garden or on a farm and are used  for the table. Planters  Nut Chocolate Co. Ltd. v. The King, (1952) 1  Dom. L.R. 385, Madhya Pradesh Pan Merchants’ Association,  Santra Market,  Nagpur  v. The State of Madhya Pradesh  (Sales  Tax Departmwnt)  [1956] 7 S.T.C. 99, Bhairondon Tolaram  v.  The State of Rajasthan, [1957] 8 S.T.C. 798, Kokil Ram & Sons v. The State of Bihar, [1949] 1 S.T.C. 217 and Dharam Das  Paul v.  The  Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, [1958]  8  S.T.C. 194, considered. Brahma  Nand v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, [1956] 7  S.T.C. 206 and Firm Shri Krishna Chaudhry v. Commissioner of  Sales Tax, [1956] 7 S.T.C. 742, referred to.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 4,36 and 37 of 1958. Petition  under  Art. 32 of the Constitution  of  India  for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. R.   Ganapathy Iyer and K. L. Hathi, for the petitioners. C.   K.  Paphtary,  Solicitor  General of India,  B.  R.  L. Iyengar an(!  P. M. Sen, for the respondents. 280 1961.  March 14.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR,  J.-These  are three petitions under Art. 32  of  the Constitution  challenging  the imposition of  sales  tax  on betel leaves by the Sales Tax Officer, Akola.  The  question raised  in  all  the three petitions is  the  same  and  can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment. The petitioners in the three petitions are dealers in  betel leaves at Akola, now in the State of Maharashtra and at  the relevant time in the State of Madhya Pradesh.  The Assistant Sales  Tax Officer at Akola assessed the  petitioners  under the provisions of the C. P. & Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act XXI of 1947), hereinafter termed the "Act" to the payment of gales tax as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------- Writ Petition           period                Amount No. ---------------------------------------------------------- W.P. No. 4/58       7-11-53 to 26-10-54.  Rs. 1882-9-0            &   27-10-54 to 14-11-55.      Rs. 1885-13-0 W.P. No. 36/58      27-10-54 to 26-10-55. Rs. 1890-3-0 W.P. No. 37/58      27-10-54 to 14-11-55.  Rs. 3530-4-0 --------------------------------------------------------- The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 4 and 36 did not appeal  under s.  22  of the Act but the petitioner in W. P.  No.  37  did appeal under that section.  As he did not deposit the amount of tax the petition was dismissed.  He then filed a petition under Art. 226 in the High Court of Nagpur but that petition was  withdrawn  and therefore no decision was given  on  the merits of the case.  In all the petitions the submission  of the petitioners is that the order demanding tax was  without authority  of law inasmuch as betel leaves were not  taxable under  s. 6 read with the second Schedule of the  Act.   The imposition of the tax, it is alleged. is an infringement  of the petitioners’ right to carry on trade 281

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

or  business  guaranteed  under Art. 19(1)(g)  of  the  Con- stitution  and  the  prayer is for the issue of  a  writ  of certiorari  quashing  the order of the Assistant  Sales  Tax Officer and for prohibition.               Section 6 of the Act under which the exemption               is claimed provides:               S.6(1) "No tax shall be payable under this               Act  on  the Sale of goods  specified  in  the               second  column of Schedule II, subject to  the               conditions. and exceptions, if any, set out in               the  corresponding entry in the  third  column               thereof               (2)The  State Government may, after  giving               by  notification  not less  than  one  month’s               notice  of  their  intention so to  do,  by  a               notification after the expiry of the period of               notice  mentioned  in the  first  notification               amend  either  Schedule,, and  thereupon  such               Schedule shall he deemed to be amended accord-               ingly."               Thus  under the Act all articles mentioned  in               the  Schedule were exempt from Sales  Tax  and               articles  not so specified were  taxable.   In               the Schedule applicable there were  originally               two items which are relevant for the  purposes               of the case.  They were items Nos. 6 and 36:               Item  6 Vegetables-Except when sold in  sealed               containers.               Item 36 Betel leaves. The  Schedule  was amended by the C. P. &  Berar  Sales  Tax Amendment  Act  (Act XVI of 1948) by which item No.  36  was omitted.   It  is contended that in spite of  this  omission they were exempt from Sales Tax as they are vegetables.  The intention of the legislature in regard to what is vegetables is  shown by its specifying vegetables and betel  leaves  as separate items in the Schedule exempting articles from Sales Tax.   Subsequently  betel  leaves  were  removed  from  the Schedule which is indicative of the legislature’s  intention of  not  exempting betel leaves from the imposition  of  the tax.  But it was submitted that betel leaves are  vegetables and therefore they would be exempt from Sales Tax under item 6. Reliance was placed on the 36 282 dictionary  meaning  of  the word "vegetable"  as  given  in Shorter  Oxford Dictionary where the word is defined as  "of or pertaining to, comprised or consisting of, or derived, or obtained from plants or their parts".     But this word must be  construed  not in any technical       sense nor from the botanical  point  of  view  but  as  understood  in   common parlance.   It has not been defined in the Act and  being  a word  of every day use it must be construed in  its  popular sense  meaning "that sense which people conversant with  the subject  matter  with  which the statute  is  dealing  would attribute  to  it." It is to be construed as  understood  in common language; Caries on Statute Law, p. 153 (5th Ed.). It was so’ held in Planters Nut Chocolate Co. Ltd. v. The  King (1).  This interpretation was accepted by the High Court  of Madhya Pradesh in Madhya Pradesh Pan Merchants’ Association, Santra Market, Nagpur v. The State of Madhya Pradesh  (Sales Tax Department) (2) where it was observed:-               "In our opinion, the word "vegetables"  cannot               be  given the comprehensive meaning  the  term               bears  in  natural history and  has  not  been               given that meaning in taxing statutes  before.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

             The  term "vegetables" is to be understood  as               commonly understood denoting those classes  of               vegetable  matter which are grown  in  kitchen               gardens and are used for the table." In that case the word "vegetables" was construed and in  our opinion   correctly  construed  in  relation  to  the   very provisions  of the Act which are now in  controversy  before us.   In  cases under the U. P. Sales Tax Act  betel  leaves have  been  held  not to be  within  the  expression  "green vegetables"; Brahma Nand v. The State, of Uttar  Pradesh(3); Firm Shri Krishna Chaudhry V. Commissioner of Sales Tax (4). In  Bhairondon  Tolaram v. The State of Rajasthan  (5)  they were  held not to be plants and in Kokil Ram & Sons  v.  The State of Bihar (6), it was held that vegetables meant plants cultivated for food and Paw are not foodstuffs. in Dharamdas Paul v. Commissioner of Commercial (1)  (1952) 1 Bom.  L.R. 385. 389. (3)  [1956]7 S.T.C 2o6. (5)  [1957] 8 S.T.C. 798. (2)  [1956]7 S.T.C. 99, 102. (4)  [1956] 7 S.T.C. 742. (6)  [1949]1 S.T.C. 217 283 Taxes  also  they  were  held not  to  be  vegetables  which specifically meant Sabzi, Tarkari and Sak.  Therefore  &part from the fact that the legislature by using two distinct and different  items  i.e. item 6 "vegetables" and item  No.  36 "betel  leaves" has indicated its intention,  decided  cases also  show that the word "vegetables" in taxing statutes  is to  be understood as in common parlance i.e. denoting  class of  vegetables which are grown in a kitchen garden or  in  a farm and are used for the table. In  our  view, betel leaves are not  exempt  from  taxation. Those petitions therefore fail and are dismissed with costs. One hearing fee.                                    Petitions dismissed.