JAGADISAN, J.

The petitioner was a dealer in coffee, tea etc. He was assessed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Srivaikuntam at Tuticorin, for the year 1957-58 on a net turnover of Rs. 16, 24, 177, assessable to tax at various rates. This turnover included a turnover of Rs. 7, 56, 861-59 nP., which was in respect of sales of pure coffee powder. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that coffee powder is not included in the term "coffee" under section 5(v) of the Act. The only question is whether the term "coffee" includes coffee powder.

It is not necessary to refer to the definition of "coffee" in other enactments. It is open to the Legislature to define any expression as it likes in order to suit the object and purpose of the particular enactment. There is no indication, express or implied, in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, of the Legislature intending to confine the expression "coffee'" only to coffee seeds, and not to apply it to coffee powder Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that coffee powder is something different from coffee seeds and relied upon the decision in Cotton v. Vegan and Co. ( 1896 AC 457.), where the term "grain" us