Judgment

BHAGWATI, J. - The short question which arises for determination in these appeals is whether green ginger falls within the category of goods described as "vegetables, green or dried, commonly known as sabji, tarkari or sak" in Item (6) of Schedule I to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. If it is covered by this description, it would be exempt from sales tax imposed under the provisions of that Act. The Sales Tax authorities held that green ginger is used to add flavour and taste to food and it is, therefore, not vegetable commonly known as "sabji, tarkari or sak." The orders of the Sales Tax authorities were challenged in a writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution and a single Judge of the High Court who heard the writ petition disagreed with the view taken by the Sales Tax authorities and held that green ginger is vegetable within the meaning of that expression as used in Item (6) of the First Schedule to the Act. This view of the learned single Judge was affirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court on appeal under clause (15) of the Letters Patent. Hence the present appeal by the State with special leave obtained from this Court.

2. The Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 levies sales tax on the taxable turnover of a dealer computed in accordance with the provisions of that Act. S. 6, sub-s. (1) provides that no tax shall be payable under the Act on the sale of goods specified in the first column of Schedule I, subject to the conditions and exceptions, if any, set out in the corresponding entry in the second column thereof and Item (6) of Schedule I specifies in the first column "vegetable. Green or dried, commonly known as sabji, tarkari or sak" so that no tax is payable on the sale of goods falling within this category, subject to the exception set out in the second column, namely, that they would be liable to bear tax "when sold in sealed containers." It was common ground in the present case that green ginger was not sold by the assessee in sealed containers and the only question which, therefore, requires to be considered is whether green ginger can be regarded as vegetable commonly known as sabji, tarkari or sak. Now, the word vegetable is not defined in the Act but it is well settled as a result of several decisions of this Court of which we may mention only two, namely, Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola, AIR 1961 SC 1325 and M/s. Motipur Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 660 that this word, being a word of every day use, must be construed not in any technical sense, not from any botanical point of view, but as understood in common parlance. The question which arose in Ramavatars case (supra) was whether betel leaves are "vegetables" and this court held that they are not included within that term. This Court quoted with approval the following passage from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Madhya Pradesh Pan Merchants Association, Santra Market, Nagpur v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 7 STC 99 at p. 102

"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. 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."

and observed that "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." This meaning of the word vegetable was reiterated by this Court in Motipur Zamindary case (supra) where this Court was called upon to consider whether sugar cane can be regarded as vegetable and it was held by this Court that sugar cane cannot be said to fall within the definition of the word vegetable.

3. It is interesting to note that same principle of construction in relation to word