1983 (12) TMI 266 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether "red ripe or fruit chillies" purchased by the assessees are "vegetables" within the meaning of the notification in G.O. Ms. No. 1764, Revenue, dated 5th April, 1960, issued under section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition and Interpretation of "Vegetables":
The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of the term "vegetables" as used in the notification G.O. Ms. No. 1764. The petitioners, dealers in chillies, argued that "red ripe or fruit chillies" should be classified as "vegetables" and thus be exempt from tax. However, the assessing authority, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and the Tribunal all rejected this contention, stating that "red ripe or fruit chillies" are not recognized as "vegetables" in common parlance.

2. Common Parlance Interpretation:
The court emphasized that neither the Act nor the Rules provide a specific definition of "vegetables." Therefore, the term must be understood in its common, everyday sense rather than in a technical or botanical context. This principle is supported by various precedents, including Grenfell v. Inland Revenue Commissioners and Planters Nut and Chocolate Co. Ltd. v. The King, which state that terms in statutes should be construed in their popular sense.

3. Judicial Precedents:
The court referred to several cases to support its interpretation:
- Madhya Pradesh Pan Merchants Association v. State of Madhya Pradesh: The term "vegetables" should be understood as those grown in kitchen gardens and used for the table.
- Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer: "Vegetables" should be construed in their popular sense and not in a technical or botanical sense.
- Motipur Zamindary Co. (Private) Ltd. v. State of Bihar: Sugarcane is not a "vegetable" as it is not used for the table.
- State of West Bengal v. Washi Ahmed: The term "vegetables" should denote those grown in a kitchen garden or farm and used for the table.

4. Analysis of "Red Ripe or Fruit Chillies":
Applying the common parlance rule, the court found that "red ripe or fruit chillies" do not fit within the scope of "vegetables." These chillies are not used as a principal or subsidiary item in a meal, nor are they typically sold by vegetable vendors. The court also noted that housewives and vegetable vendors do not consider "red ripe or fruit chillies" as "vegetables."

5. Examination of Mangulu Sahu Ramahari Sahu v. Sales Tax Officer:
The petitioners relied heavily on this Supreme Court decision, which held that "chillies and lemons" are "vegetables." However, the court clarified that this case dealt with "green chillies," which are used for the table, unlike "red ripe or fruit chillies." Therefore, this precedent was not applicable to the current case.

6. Historical Context of Notifications:
The court examined the history behind the notifications granting exemptions to "vegetables." Initially, green chillies were treated as distinct from "vegetables" and were given separate exemptions. At no point were "red ripe or fruit chillies" considered "vegetables" under these notifications. This historical context further supported the court's conclusion.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that "red ripe or fruit chillies" do not fall within the meaning of "vegetables" as understood in common parlance and within the context of the notification G.O. Ms. No. 1764. Consequently, the authorities were correct in denying the exemption, and the tax revision cases were dismissed with no order as to costs.