The Explanation in Schedule 3 to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (XVI of 1957) clearly states that the expression coconuts in the third schedule means dried coconuts. Therefore it cannot be construed as meaning any other variety of coconuts.

GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.

( 1 ) THESE writ petitions raise a common question and have therefore been heard together as desired by the learned counsel appearing in them.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in W. P. Nos. 245 and 1301 of 1964 is the same individual. He as well as the petitioner in W. P. No. 246 of 1964 are dealers in coconuts. They filed, as required by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tux Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), monthly returns that they are liable to be taxed only in respect of purchases of "dried" coconuts. They stated that the purchases made by them were not of dried coconuts hut of fresh or "water coconuts" which fell outside the purview of Section 6 read with Schedule 3 of the. Act. This claim was not accepted by the Commercial Tax Officer who consequently made provisional assessments on the petitioners on the footing that they were liable to be taxed on their purchases of all coconuts other than tender coconuts. These orders of assessment were later followed by demand notices in form B. 2. These notices warned the petitioners that in case they did not pay the tax assessed, it will be recovered from them as arrear of land revenue and further that they will run the risk of being subjected to penalty under Section 16 of the Act. In view of this threat of, collection of sales tax and imposition of penalty, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions under Article 226 asking that the orders of provisional assessments be quashed by certiorari.

( 3 ) WRIT Petition 245 of 3964 relates to turnover for the period August to November 1963. Writ Petition 216 of 1964 relates to the turnover in respect of the period September to December 1963 and Writ Petition 1304 of 1964 is concerned with the turnover for the period January to March 1964. The orders of provisional assessments sought to be quashed in W. P. Nos. 213 and 246 of 1964 were passed by the respondent on 9-2-1964 and that in W. P. 1304 was made by him on 30-6-1964. The disputed turnover in W. P. 245/64 is Rs. 2,72,522-33; in W. P. 1304/64 it is Rs. 2,72,455-78 and in W. P. 246/64 the turnover aggregates to Rupees 27,235-58.

( 4 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is based on the explanation inserted in the Third Schedule to the Act by Amending Act XVI of 1963. This explanation relates to item 5 of the Third Schedule and reads as follows:"the expression coconuts in this schedule means dried coconuts, shelled or unshelled including copra, but excluding tender coconuts. "this new explanation superseded the old explanation which had been inserted by Amending Act XXVI of 1961. The old explanation read:-- "the expression coconuts in this schedule means fresh or dried coconuts, shelled or unshelled including copra, but excluding tender coconuts. " On the strength of the new explanation, two alternative contentions have been put forward on behalf of the petitioners. First, that dried coconuts are those which do not contain any water at all the water having dried up. Therefore, coconuts which contain water must fall within the category of tender coconuts which are excluded from the purview of Schedule 3 by the express words of the explanation and also exempted under Section 8 by being enumerated as item 9 in the Fourth Schedule. This argument postulates that there can only be two possible classifications of coconuts, one dried and the other tender and that all coconuts must fall in one of these two categories. The other argument is that a coconut in which the water has not dried up is in no sense a "dried" coconut, even if it cannot be regarded as a tender coconut. According to this argument a coconut which is ripe and fully grown and which contains water cannot be regarded as a "dried" coconut within the meaning of the third schedule to the Act.

( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent seeks to counter these contentions by urging that what is not a tender coconut, that is to say, a co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document