http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: M/S. MOTIPUR ZAMINDARY CO. (P) LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/11/1961

BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) HIDAYATULLAH, M. SHAH, J.C. MUDHOLKAR, J.R.

CITATION:  1962 AIR  660            1962 SCR  Supl. (1) 498  CITATOR INFO :  R          1977 SC1638  (2)  R          1979 SC 300  (3)  RF         1986 SC 626  (12)  R          1992 SC 224  (12)

ACT:      Sales Tax-Exemption of green vegetables-Sugar Cane, if falls within exemption-Dealer-Producer of sugar cane,  whether a dealer-Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Bihar  19 of 1947), ss. 2(c), 6-Notification No. 9884-F  7 dated  August 28,  1947-Bihar Annual Finance Act, 1950.

HEADNOTE:      Under s.  6 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, the Government  issued  a  notification  exempting certain goods from the 499 payment of  sales tax, including "green vegetables other than  potatoes, except  when sold  in sealed containers". The  appellant who  was a producer of sugar can  was assessed to sales tax. He contended that sugar  cane was  a green  vegetables and  was exempted from  tax and that he was not a dealer as defined in  s. 2  (c) of  the Act and could not be assessed to sales tax. ^      Held,  that   sugar  cane  was  not  a  green vegetable  and   was  not   exempted   under   the notification.  The  word  "vegetables"  in  taxing statutes  was   to  be  understood  as  in  common parlance i.e.  denoting class  of vegetables which were grown  in a  kitchen garden  or in a farm and were used  for the table. The dictionaries defined sugar cane as a "grass."      Ramavtar Budhaiprasad  v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola, A.I.R. 1961 S. C. 1325, followed.      The State of Bombay v. R. S. Phadtare, [1956] 7 S. T. C. 495, disapproved.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    Held,  further,  that  the  appellant  was  a dealer within  the definition  in s. 2(c). Section 2(c) was  amended by the Bihar Annual Finance Act, 1950. The  amended was  not a  temporary amendment for  only   one  year;  the  amended  section  was applicable to  the present  case. The amending Act did not require the assent of the President as the matter fell  entirely within entry 54 of the State List.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeals Nos. 185 to 187 of 1961.      Appeals by  special leave  from the  judgment and order  dated May  13, 1959,  of the Patna High Court in Misc. Judicial Case No. 352 of 1957.                        WITH         Petitions Nos. 163 to 165 of 1959.      Petitions Under  Art. 32  of the Constitution of  India   for  the  enforcement  of  Fundamental Rights.      M. C.  Setalvad, Attorney-General  of  India, Veda   Vyasa    and   Naunit    Lal,    for    the appellants/petitioners.      A.  S.   R.  Chari,   D.  P.  Singh.,  M.  K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala, for the respondents. 500      1961. November  20. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KAPUR, J.-The  principal question  raised  in these appeals  and petitions  under Art. 32 of the Constitution is  whether sugar  cane falls  within the  term  "green  vegetables"  and  is  therefore exempt from sales tax under the exemption given by the notification  dated August  28,  1947,  issued under s. 6 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act 1947, (Bihar 19 of  1947), hereinafter  called the ’Act’. After hearing  the   arguments  in   these  appeals  and petitions we  announced  our  decision  dismissing them with  costs and  we now  proceed to  give our reasons for the same.      The  three   appeals  by  special  leave  are brought by  the assessee  and relate to assessment of sales tax for three years, 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 for  which the  amount of sales tax levied was  Rs.   28,866,  Rs.   23,383  and  Rs.  23,298 respectively.  Besides   the  three   appeals  the assessee company  has filed  three petitions under Art. 32  challenging the  constitutionality of the assessments. In  this judgment  the appellant  and the petitioner is a private limited company and it will be  termed "appellant" and the State of Bihar which   is   respondent   will   be   termed   the "respondent".      The  appellant   took  an  objection  to  the assessment  and   filed  appeals   to  the  Deputy Commissioner  of   Commercial  taxes  and  then  a revision to  the Board  of Revenue and then at its instance the  following question  was referred  by the  Board  of  Revenue  to  the  High  Court  for opinion:-           "Whether sugar cane is a green vegetable

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    within the  meaning of item 6 of notification      No. 9884-FT  dated 28-8-47 and as such exempt      from taxation." The High  Court answered  the question against the appellant and held that "sugar cane" was not 501 included in  the term "green vegetables" and it is the correctness  of that  answer  which  has  been canvassed before  us. In  the petitions under Art. 32 of  the Constitution  it was contended that the appellant being a producer of sugar cane was not a "dealer"  within   the  meaning  of  the  Act  and therefore no tax was payable on sale of sugar cane by it.      The exemption under the Act is provided under s. 6  of the  Act which, at the relevant time, was as follows:-           S. 6 "No tax shall be payable under this      Act on  the sale  of any  goods or  class  of      goods specified in this behalf by the (State)      Government by  notification in  the  Official      Gazette, subject to such conditions as may be      mentioned in the notification:           Provided no notification shall be issued      under this  section  without  giving  in  the      Official Gazette  such previous notice as the      State Government  may consider reasonable, of      its intention to issue such notification." Under s. 6 of the Act the notification relied upon was  issued   on  August   28,  1947.   This   was notification  No.   9884-FT  which   was  in   the following terms:-           "In exercise  of the powers conferred by      section 6  of the  Bihar Sales  Tax Act, 1947      (Bihar Act  XIX of 1947), and in supersession      of the  previous notifications on the subject      the Governor  of Bihar  is pleased  to direct      that no  tax shall  be payable under the said      Act on  the sale  of goods  specified in  the      second column  of the schedule hereto annexed      subject to the exceptions, if any, set out in      the corresponding  entry in  the third column      thereof. 502                    THE SCHEDULE Serial Description  Exception subject to which the No. of goods. exemption has been allowed. 1................. 2................. 3................. 4................. 5................. 6 Green  vegetables Except  when  sold  in  sealed other than pota- containers.      toes. .................................................. ........." The question  raised  is  that  sugar  cane  falls within the  term "green  vegetables" in entry 6 of the  Schedule   and  is   therefore  exempt   from assessment  to  Sales  tax.  In  support  of  this contention counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of  the for  the appellant  relied upon a judgment of  the Bombay  High Court,  The State of Bombay v.  R. S.  Phadtara (1)  where it  was held

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

that  sugar  cane  is  "fresh  vegetable"  and  is therefore exempt  from sales  tax under  a similar notification issued  under the  Bombay  Sales  Tax Act. Changla  C. J., there observed at page 496 as follows:-           "In its  plain  and  natural  meaning  a      "vegetable" clearly  is wide  enough to cover      "sugar  cane";  but  what  is  urged  by  the      Advocate General  is that we must not give it      that  wide  meaning  but  must  give  it  the      popular meaning  as under stood by people who      deal in  vegetables or eat vegetables, and it      is urged that from that narrow and restricted      point of  view sugar  cane is  not vegetable.      This is  a taxing  statue and if in favour of      that construction  which gives  relief to the      subject. That was exactly the 503      approch of  the Sales Tax Tribunal and in our      opinion that approach was a very proper one." This observation is not in accord with the opinion given by  this Court  in Ramaytar  Badhriprasad v. Assistant Sales  tax Officer,  Akola (1)  in which under an  almost identical  entry it was held that "betel  leaves"   is  not  included  in  the  term "vegetables".  After   quoting  with   approval  a passage from  the  judgment  of  the  Nagpur  High Court, Madhya Pradesh pan Merchants Association v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2) this court said:           "the word "vegetable" 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." If that  is the  meaning of  the word "vegetables" sugar  cane  cannot  fail  within  entry  6  which relates  to   green   vegetables.   In   Webster’s dictionary "sugar  cane" has  been defined  as  "a grass  extensively  grown  in  tropical  and  warm regions for its sugar" and in Oxford dictionary it is defined  as "a  tall peronnial grass cultivated in tropical and sub-tropical countries and forming the  chief   source  of   unmanufactured   sugar". Therefore it  cannot be said that sugar cane falls within  the   definition  of   the  words   "green vegetables".      The second  question which  was raised before us and which arises in the petitions under Art. 32 is that  the appellant  company is  not a "dealer" within the  meaning of  the word  as defined in s. 2(c) of the Act which is as follows:-           " "dealer" means any person who sells or      supplies any  goods (including  goods sold or      supplied in the execution of a contract) 504      whether  for   commission,  remuneration   or      otherwise and  includes any family or a Hindu      joint family,  the Government and any society      club or  association which  sells or supplies      goods to its members". The words  of this  sub-section are  very wide and cover the case of the appellant and therefore this point  is  also  without  substance  and  must  be rejected. But it was argued that the definition of the word  "dealer" in the Act which was amended by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

Bihar Annual  Finance Act  1950 is applicable only for the  financial year  beginning April  1, 1950, and not for subsequent years and  for that aid was sought from  the  preamble  to  the  Bihar  Annual Finance Act 1950. That preamble is as follows:-           "whereas it  is expedient  to amend  the      Bihar Sales  Tax Act,  1947, and  the   Bihar      Agricultural Income  Tax Act, 1948, to levy a      tax on passengers and goods carried by public      service vehicles  and public  carries and  to      lay down  rates on  Sales Tax  payable  under      Bihar Sales  Tax Act  1947 to  fix  limit  of      taxable agricultural income to lay down rates      of agricultural  Income Tax Act and Super Tax      chargeable under  Bihar  Agricultural  Income      Tax  Act,   1948  for   the  financial   year      beginning on the 1st day of April 1950 and to      make further  provisions in  connection  with      the finance of this State of Bihar". The preamble cannot limit or change the meaning of the plain  words of  s.2(c) of the Act which apply to the  case of  the appellant  and therefore  the amended section is applicable to the present case. It is an erroneous approach to the question to say that because  of the words "for the financial year beginning on  the first  of  April  1950"  in  the particular context in the preamble, the definition of the word "dealer" was amended only for one year Nothing has been shown indicating that section 505 (2)(i) of  Bihar Annual  Finance Act  intended  to effect  a  temporary  amendment  in  the  previous definition of the word "dealer" in cl(c) of s.2 of the Act. The contention is therefore repelled.      It was  also submitted that the assent of the President  was  not  given  to  the  Bihar  Annual Finance Act  1950. In  our opinion that submission is equally  without force  because tax  on sale of goods is  a matter entirely within entry 54 of the State  List   and  the   amendment  made   in  the definition of the word "dealer" in the Act did not require the assent of the President.      In our  opinion the appeals and the petitions under Art.  32 are without merit and are therefore dismissed with costs. One hearing fee.       Appeals and writ petitions dismissed.