Case Summary
| Citation | Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Asstt. S.T.O. (1962) 1 SCR 279: AIR 1961 SC 1325 |
| Keywords | vegetables, betel leaves, tax exemption, item 6 & 36, kitchen gardens, literal interpretation |
| Facts | Ramavtar, a businessman, deals in selling the betel leaves. The Sales Tax Officer under CP Berar & Sales Tax Act imposed a tax on betel leaves, but the petitioner argued that it is a vegetable and no tax will be imposed under section 6. He said that the imposition of tax is an infringement of his rights. Item 6 is for Vegetables and Item 36 is for Betel leaves. The Schedule was amended in which item 36 was omitted and thus it is exempt from tax as they are vegetables. |
| Issues | whether betel leaves should be considered “vegetables” under the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. If so, the petitioner would be liable for sales tax on the sale of betel leaves? |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | The court made a literal interpretation of the word “vegetable” that vegetables can be understood in common parlance as classes of vegetable matter that are grown in a kitchen garden and can be used for the table. Legislature’s intention for not exempting betel leaves from the imposition of tax by using distinct items, i.e., items 6 and 36. The court referred cases like Kokil Ram & Sons vs The state of Bihar where the court stated that vegetables meant plants cultivated for food and Pans are not foodstuffs. |
| Judgement | The court held that betel leaves are not exempt from tax because it is not a vegetable that can be grown in a kitchen garden and can be used for the table. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
J. L. KAPUR, J. – These are three petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging
the imposition of sales tax on betel leaves by the Sales Tax Officer, Akola. The question raised
in all the three petitions is the same and can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment.
- The petitioners in the three petitions are dealers in betel leaves at Akola, now in the State
of Maharashtra and at the relevant time in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Assistant Sales
Tax Officer at Akola assessed the petitioners under the provisions of the C.P. & Berar Sales
Tax Act, 1947 (Act 21 of 1947), hereinafter termed the “Act” to the payment of sales tax as
follows:
WRIT PETITION NO. PERIOD AMOUNT
WP No. 4/58 7-11-53 to 26-10-54 Rs 1882- 9-0
& 27-10-54 to 14-11-55 Rs 1885-13-0
WP No. 36/58 27-10-54 to 26-10-55 Rs 1890- 3-0
WP No. 37/58 27-10-54 to 14-11-55 Rs 3530- 4-0
The petitioners in WP Nos. 4 and 36 did not appeal under Section 22 of the Act but the
petitioner in WP No. 37 did appeal under that section. As he did not deposit the amount of tax
the petition was dismissed. He then filed a petition under Article 226 in the High Court of
Nagpur but that petition was withdrawn and therefore no decision was given on the merits of
the case. In all the petitions the submission of the petitioners is that the order demanding tax
was without authority of law inasmuch as betel leaves were not taxable under Section 6 read
with the second Schedule of the Act. The imposition of the tax, it is alleged, is an infringement
of the petitioners’ right to carry on trade or business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution and the prayer is for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the
Assistant Sales Tax Officer and for prohibition.
“Section 6 of the Act under which the exemption is claimed provides:
(1) No tax shall be payable under this Act on the sale of goods specified in the
second column of Schedule II, subject to the conditions and exceptions, if any, set out
in the corresponding entry in the third column thereof.
(2) The State Government may, after giving by notification not less than one
month’s notice of their intention so to do, by a notification after the expiry of the period
of notice mentioned in the first notification amend either Schedule, and thereupon such
Schedule shall be deemed to be amended accordingly.”
Thus under the Act all articles mentioned in the Schedule were exempt from Sales Tax and
articles not so specified were taxable. In the Schedule applicable there were originally two items
which are relevant for the purposes of the case. They were Items 6 and 36:
“Item 6 Vegetables – Except when sold in sealed containers. Item 36 Betel leaves.” - The Schedule was amended by the C.P. & Berar Sales Tax Amendment Act (Act 16 of
1948) by which Item 36 was omitted. It is contended that in spite of this omission they were
exempt from Sales Tax as they are vegetables. The intention of the legislature in regard to what is vegetables is shown by its specifying vegetables and betel leaves as separate items in the Schedule exempting articles from Sales Tax. Subsequently betel leaves were removed from the Schedule which is indicative of the legislature’s intention of not exempting betel leaves from the imposition of the tax. But it was submitted that betel leaves are vegetables and therefore they would be exempt from Sales Tax under Item 6. Reliance was placed on the dictionary meaning of the word “vegetable” as given in Shorter Oxford Dictionary where the word is defined as “of or pertaining to, comprised or consisting of, or derived, or obtained from plants or their parts”. But this word must be construed not in any technical sense nor from the botanical point of view but as understood in common parlance. It has not been defined in the Act and being a word of every day use it must be construed in its popular sense meaning “that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it”. It is to be construed as understood in common language; Craies on Statute Law 153 (5th Edn.). It was so held in Planters Nut Chocolate Co. Ltd. v. The King [(1952) 1 Dom LR 385, 389]. This interpretation was accepted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Madhya Pradesh Pan Merchants’ Association, Santra Market, Nagpur v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Sales Tax Department) [7 STC 99, 102], where it was observed:
“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.’
In that case the word “vegetables” was construed and in our opinion correctly construed in relation to the very provisions of the Act which are now in controversy before us. In cases under the U.P. Sales Tax Act betel leaves have been held not to be within the expression “green vegetables”; Brahma Nand v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [7 STC 206]; Firm Shri Krishna Chaudhry v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [7 STC 742]. In Bhairondon Tolaram v. The State= of Rajasthan [8 STC 798], they were held not to be plants and in Kokil Ram & Sons v. The State of Bihar [(1949) 1 STC 217], it was held that vegetables meant plants cultivated for food and Pans are not foodstuffs. In Dharamdas Paul v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [(1958) 9 STC 194] also they were held not to be vegetables which specifically meant Sabzi, Tarkari & Sak. Therefore apart from the fact that the legislature by using two distinct and different items i.e. Item 6 “vegetables” and Item 36 “betel leaves” has indicated its intention, decided cases also show that the word “vegetables” 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. In our view, betel leaves are not exempt from taxation. These petitions therefore fail and are dismissed.
