1972 (12) TMI 68 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Whether coconut qualifies as a fresh fruit under the Government notification for tax exemption.
2. Whether coconut qualifies as a vegetable under the Government notification for tax exemption.
3. Whether coconut qualifies as an oil-seed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether Coconut Qualifies as a Fresh Fruit
The primary issue was whether coconut could be classified as a fresh fruit under the Government notification dated 5th April, 1960, which exempts "all sales of vegetables, fresh fruits, betel and plantain leaves, flowers, eggs, meat and fish (other than canned meat and fish) and the purchases of potatoes" from sales tax.

The court examined various definitions and precedents:
- The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary defines fruits as "edible products of plant or tree, consisting of seed and its envelope, especially when this is juicy or pulpy."
- In "Coconut Palm" by K.P.B. Menon and K.M. Pandalai, coconut is generally referred to as a "fruit."
- Webster's Dictionary describes "coconut" as the "fruit of the coconut palm consisting of a thick fibrous brown ovate husk under which there is thick hard shell enclosing the layer of edible white meat."
- A Full Bench of this Court in S.M. Narayana Ayyangar v. S.P.R.M. Subramanian Chettiar held that coconuts are fruits and coconut trees are fruit trees.

However, the court emphasized that the term must be interpreted in the context of the statute and common parlance, as established by the Supreme Court in Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh. The court concluded that the term "fresh fruits" in the notification did not intend to include coconuts, as historically, coconuts were subject to sales tax and were specifically excluded from exemptions in earlier notifications. The court also noted the perishable nature of items listed in the exemption, which does not align with the nature of coconuts.

Issue 2: Whether Coconut Qualifies as a Vegetable
The court also considered whether coconut could be classified as a vegetable under the same Government notification. The principle from Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer was applied, where "vegetables" are understood as those grown in kitchen gardens and used for the table.

The court noted:
- The kernel of the coconut is used in culinary preparations to add taste but is not a substantial article of food itself.
- The test is whether the item is a principal article of food, like fish or meat, not merely an ingredient.

The court concluded that coconut does not meet the criteria of being a vegetable as it is not a principal article of food and is not typically grown in kitchen gardens.

Issue 3: Whether Coconut Qualifies as an Oil-Seed
This issue was addressed briefly as it was already settled by the Division Bench in Kannappa Mudaliar v. State of Madras, which held that coconut is not an oil-seed within the meaning of item 6(a) of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Therefore, no further arguments were advanced on this ground.

Conclusion:
- T.C. No. 195 of 1968: Allowed, confirming that coconut is neither a fresh fruit nor a vegetable under the Government notification.
- T.C. No. 411 of 1969: Dismissed, upholding the same reasoning.
- W.P. Nos. 1439 and 3425 of 1970: Dismissed, reinforcing that coconut does not qualify for exemption as a fresh fruit or vegetable.

The State is entitled to costs in T.C. Nos. 195 of 1968 and 411 of 1969, and W.P. No. 1439 of 1970, with counsel fees set at Rs. 150 in each case. No order as to costs in W.P. No. 3425 of 1970.

← Previous Next →