COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, M.P. versus POPULAR TRADING COMPANY, UJJAIN

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 983 · Decided: 05-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, M.P. 
v. 
POPULAR TRADING COMPANY, UJJAIN 
APRIL 5, 2000 
' [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
M.P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976: 
Entry 5(viii) Schedule. 
Entry Tax-AYs 1978-79 and 1979-80-"Watery coconut"-Taxahility 
of-Held: Expression "Oil seeds, that is to say-{viii) Coconut (i.e. Copra 
excluding tender coconuts) (Cocos Nucifera)" covers "watery coconut" also-
Hence, "watery coconut" is liable to be taxed. 
Wonir and Phrases: 
"That is to say"-Meaning of-In the context of Entry 5(viii) of the 
Schedule to the M.P. Sthaniya KshetraMe Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 
1976. 
"Watery coconut"-Meaning of 
Respondent-assessee was a dealer in coconuts and was assessed to 
entry tax for the Assessment Years 1978-79 and 1979-80 on "watery coco-
nut" under Entry 5(viii) of the Schedule to the M.P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me 
Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976. The assessee claimed in the 
appeal that 'copra' and 'coconut' were commercially two different com· 
modities and 'watery coconut' was not liable to payment to entry tax. 
However, the appellate authority rejected this claim. The matter was car-
ried in second appeal to the Tribunal unsuccessfully. 
The High Court, on appeal, held that ''watery coconut" fell outside 
the scope of Entry 5(viii) and also stated that every seed or article which 
could yield oil was not an oil seed and adopted the test as to whether 
'coeonut' is 'copra'. Inasmuch as 'watery coconut' could not be classified 
as 'copra' High Court held ''watery coconut'' was not liable to be taxed 
under the said entry. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
983 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
HELD : 1. The expression 'that is to say' occurring in Entry 5(viii) 
to the Schedule to the M.P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar 
Adhiniyam, 1976 is descriptive, enumerative and exhaustive and circum-
scribes to a great extent the scope of the said entry. The said entry pro-
vides for 'Oil seeds, that is to say coconut', which again says, 'i.e. Copra 
and coconut including any other commodity'. An oil seed botanically 
means a seed, which is a flowering plant's unit of reproduction or germ 
capable of devefoping into another such plant. Seed, which can yield oil, is 
an oil seed. If a seed by reason of application of a scientific method 
produces, oil is not necessarily understood to be an 'oil seed' in a common 
parlance. If a commodity possesses all the qualities of an oil seed it cannot 
be excluded from the ambit of the expression 'oil seed'. Oil is generally 
extracted from dry coconuts, but in some parts of_!ndia it is extracted even 
from copra recovered from fresh coconuts._Copr.~ -of 'waterr coconut' 
before it dries up may not yield as much oil as dried copra. The oil, which 
it yields, may also contain some watery substance, which has to be elimi-
nated for the purpose of recovering pure coconut oil. At the same time, it 
yields sufficient quantity of oil. Thus 'watery coconut' while yielding oil 
merely because it yields some watery substance does not cease to be an 'oil 
seed' and, therefore, it falls within the entry. [986-A-D] 
State ofT.N. v. Pyarelal Malhotra, (1976) 37 STC 311 and Ganpat Lal 
E 
Lakhotia v. State of Rajasthan, [1997] 10 SCC 455, relied on. 
F 
G 
Sri Krishna Coconut Co. v. CTO, (1965) 16 STC 511 AP, referred to. 
Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Coconut & Co. v. State of A.P., [1974] 4 SCC 835, 
held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 9825-9826 
of 1996. 
From the Judgment a!ld Ogler dated),J,U.95 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in M.C.C. Nos. 301 and 302 of 1986. 
S.K. Agnihotri and Ms. Madhur Dadlani for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. 
For the assessment periods 1978-79 and 
H 
1979-80 the Sales Tax Officer assessed the respondent under the Madhya 
.
COMMR. OF SALES TAX v. POPULAR TRADING CO. [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 985 
Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976, that 
A 
is, an Act to levy a tax on the entry of goods into a local area in Madhya 
Pradesh for conswnption, use or sale therein [hereinafter referred to as 'the 
Act']. The respondent is a dealer in coconuts. Apart from oil he was assessed 
to entry tax on 'watery coconuts' under the Act. The assessee claimed in the 
appeal that 'copra' and 'coconut' are commercially two different commodi-
ties an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.