1997 (7) TMI 616 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of the term "dry fruit" under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 for assessing turnover exemption on the sale of almonds.

In this judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the petitioner, a dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, was assessed for the turnover related to the sale of almonds for the assessment year 1977-78. The petitioner claimed exemption for the turnover related to second sales of dry fruits, including almonds. The departmental authorities and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal did not accept this claim, leading to the present revision. The Tribunal's view was that almonds did not qualify as dry fruits since they lacked pulp or fleshy substance, which the Court found untenable. The Court analyzed the definition of "nut" in a Calcutta High Court judgment and the common parlance understanding of "dry fruit" to determine that almonds indeed fell within the meaning of dry fruits under entry 112 of the Act.

The key argument raised by the Special Government Pleader for Taxes was that almonds should be classified as seed-nuts and not dry fruits, citing a judgment from the Calcutta High Court. However, the Court disagreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the presence of pulp or fleshy substance distinguishes fresh fruits from dry fruits. The Court highlighted that when such substances are completely dried, as in the case of apricots, the fruit transforms into a dry fruit. The Court also differentiated the provision under consideration in the present case from the one interpreted by the Calcutta High Court, focusing on the specific entry in the First Schedule to the Act regarding dry fruits.

The Court delved into the meaning of "dry fruit" in common parlance and trade usage, concluding that almonds are commonly understood as dry fruits. By defining "almond" as the oval nut-like seed of the stone fruit from the tree prunus dulcis, the Court determined that almonds fit the definition of dry fruits under entry 112 of the First Schedule to the Act. The Court clarified that the nut-like form of almonds does not preclude their classification as dry fruits. Consequently, the Court set aside the previous order and allowed the revision, granting the petitioner the exemption sought.