Judges : M.S.MENON,T.K.JOSEPH,P.GOVINDA NAIR
Krishna Iyer - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : O. P. No. 542 of 1960, 767 of 1949
Decided On : 03/06/1962
Advocates Appeared :
T. N. Subramonia Iyer; S. Subramonia Iyer; For Petitioner M. U. Isaac; For State
General Sales Tax Act, 1125 - Liability of 'green ginger' to taxation - S.6 - Notifications exempting 'vegetables including tapioca except its manufactured product' - Interpretation of the term 'vegetables' - Court held that 'green ginger' falls within the exemption for 'vegetables' and is not liable to taxation. The court also considered the liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and held that 'green ginger' was not liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act for the period up to 1-10-1958.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered whether 'green ginger' is liable to taxation under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner relied on notifications exempting 'vegetables including tapioca except its manufactured product' to claim exemption for 'green ginger'. The court also analyzed the liability under the Central Sales Tax Act for the period up to 1-10-1958.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that 'green ginger' falls within the exemption for 'vegetables' and is not liable to taxation under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. It also held that 'green ginger' was not liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act for the period up to 1-10-1958.
Issues: The main issue was whether 'green ginger' can be considered as coming under the entry 'vegetables including tapioca except its manufactured product' and whether it is liable to taxation under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. The court also considered the liability of 'green ginger' under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the term 'vegetables' in the notifications and held that 'green ginger' falls within the exemption for 'vegetables'. It also analyzed the liability under the Central Sales Tax Act and concluded that 'green ginger' was not liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act for the period up to 1-10-1958.
Final Decision: The court maintained the order imposing tax on the turnover relating to 'green ginger' for the period 1-10-1957 to 31-3-1958, but quashed the order imposing tax on the turnover of 'green ginger' for the period from 1-4-1958 to 31-3-1959. The court also directed the respondent to determine the turnover for the period from 1-10-1958 to 31-3-1959 and assess the petitioner on that turnover.
1. The first question for consideration in these petitions is whether 'green ginger' is liable to taxation under the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. Both the petitions are by the same person.
2. The period covered by the assessment order challenged in O.P. 767 of 1959 -Ext. A-is the period from 1-10-1957 to 31-3-1958, and the period covered by the assessment order challenged in O.P. 542 of 1960 - Ext. A-is the period from 1-4-1958 to 31-3-1959.
3. Counsel for the petitioner relies on two notifications of the Government in support of the non-liability to taxation claimed in respect of 'green ginger", one dated 15-6-1950 and issued by the Travancore-Cochin Government, and another dated 25-3-1958, and issued by the Government of Kerala. Both the notifications were issued under S.6 of the Act. The item exempted was described as follows:
"Vegetables including tapioca except its manufactured product."
This exemption applied for the period 1-10-1957 to 1-10-1958. Though the earlier notification dated 15-6-1950 insisted on a licence being taken for claiming the benefit of exemption, the notification dated 25-3-1958 did not impose any such condition. The implications of this will be dealt with later in this judgment. With effect from 1-10-1958, the above item was omitted by a subsequent notification dated 23-9-1958 and on the same day another notification was issued allowing the exemption subject to the condition that a licence should be taken. The effect of these notifications also will be considered later.
4. The main question for consideration is whether 'green ginger' can be considered as coming under the entry "vegetables including tapioca except its manufactured product." We have come to the conclusion that it can and should be so considered.
5. 'Green chillies' and 'green ginger' go together in the culinary art of Malabar. It is common ground that the Department has treated the petitioner's turnover in respect of 'green chillies' as exempt from taxation on the ground that'green chillies' are within the description of 'vegetables'. If such is the case, we see no reason why'green ginger' also should not be considered as coming within the purview of that exemption. There is a specific averment in the affidavits accompanying the petitions that'green ginger' is a 'vegetable and hence exempt from taxation. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Department challenging the correctness of this statement.
6. There is no doubt that'green ginger' is a vegetable if we go by the dictionary meaning of the word 'vegetable' as it definitely comes within that great division of organic matter distinguished from the other division of animals. The meaning of the word given in the Chambers' Dictionary is:
"An organism belonging to the great division distinguished from animals by being unable to deal with solid food, commonly but not necessarily fixed in position - a plant: a plant or part of one used for food, other than those reckoned fruits."
Black's law Dictionary defines the word 'vegetable' as follows:
"A part or the whole of a herb used chiefly for culinary purposes, but also frequently for feeding domestic animals. In a comprehensive sense, any living organism not possessed of animal life; a plant of any kind".
7. But it is not the dictionary meaning of the term that will invariably prevail in the construction of a statute. The rule of interpretation applicable to such cases is well recognised. It is the rule that particular words used by the legislature in the denomination of article should be understood according to the common commercial understanding of the term used and not in their scientific or technical sense, for, as stated in 9 Wheaten U.S. 435, the legislature does not suppose our merchants to be naturalists, or geologists, or botanists. In 1951 Canada Law Reports (Exchequer Court) 122 the question as to whether salted peanuts and cashewnuts fell within the category of 'fruit' or 'vegetable' for the purpose of the Excise
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.