MAHALAKSHMI OIL MILLS ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1088 · Decided: 14-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAHALAKSHMI OIL MILLS ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 14, 1988 
13 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
c 
I) 
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957: Section 8 and 
Fourth Schedule Entry 7-'Tobacco or any form oftobacco'-Whether 
includes 'tobacco seeds'-Whether exempted from tax. 
The appellant-assessee had claimed before the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court that tobacoo seed oil and tobacco seed cake, being forms of 
tobacco, were entitled to exemption under section 8, read with entry 7 
of the Fourth Schedule, of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 
1957, which confers exemption-from sales tax in respect of certain goods 
including 'tobacco'. The petitioners in the writ petitions have claimed 
the same relief directly in this Court. 
The High Court held that "tobacco seed" was not "tobacco .. and 
that only leaf, stalks and stems of the tobacco plant could be said to be 
"'tobacco" within the meaning of its definition. 
E 
Before this Court it is urged on behalf of the Assessees that: ( i) the 
\.\-'Ord "tobacco', in its ordinary connotation. takes in the tobacco plant 
and every part of it, including the seed (ii) the definition of 'tobacco' 
makes it clear that it takes in every form of tobacco, manufactured or 
unmanufactured; and (iii) tobacco seeds, not only when they are in their 
raw unmanufactured state but also when, on manufacture, they 
F 
manifest themselves in the form of tobacco seed oil or tobacco seed cake 
will fall within the definition. On the .other hand, on behalf of the State 
it is submitted that the definition, which covers both what the expres-
sion means as well as what it includes, is exhaustive, and tobacco seed 
does not come within either the first part or the second part of the 
definition. 
G 
Dismissing the appeals and the petitions, it was, 
'.
1
( 
HELD: (!) The definition consists of two separate parts which 
specify what the expression means and also what it includes. The 
joint use of the words "mean and include" makes the definition 
'f:..
H 
exhaustive. I I094C] 
l088 
• 
' !' 
MAHALAKSHMI OIL MILLS v. STA1E OF A.P. 
1089 
Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps, [1899) AC 99 referred to. 
(2) Tobacco seed does not come within the first part of the defini-
tion, for the expression. "tobacco cured or uncured, manufactured or 
unmanfactured" has to be read as a whole and will not take in tobacco 
seed. It will not come under the second part because it specifically 
A 
mentions leaves, stalks and stems but leaves out seeds. [1094A-B) 
B 
(3) The definition, when it says that tobacco means any form of 
tobacco, lays emphasis that the item under consideration should be 
tobacco in form. [l096A) 
(4) Tobacco seed; once it is separated from the plant, is an item 
entirely different from tobacco and does not fall within the expression 
·'tobacco or any form oftobacco'. [1096C) 
c 
(5) Since tobacco seed does not fall within the definition, the oil 
and cake produced by the crushing of the seeds will not also be covered by 
the definition or eligible for·the consequent e,;:emption. [ 1094B) 
D 
(6) The effect of accepting the assessee's claim for exemption 
would be to automatically catapult them into the levy of excise and 
additional excise duties, hut the fact that tobacco oil and cake have not 
been considered to be excisable commodities for the past several years is 
as indication as to how the legislature and administration understood 
E 
and applied these provisions all along. l1096H; 1097B) 
C.J. T. v. Taj Mahal Hotel, [1971) 82 I.T.R. 44 S.C. Amara 
Purushotham Mamidi Obaiah v. State of A.P., [1962) 29 S.T.C. 654; 
and 1977-40 S.T.C. referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 259 
to 261 (NT)/77 etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.76 and 24.12.76 
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. Nos. 439 and 287 of 1975 
F 
and 4144 of 1976 and W.P. No. 8905 of 1987 
G 
A.S. Nambiar, B. Parthasarthi and B. Kanta Rao for the 
Appellants. 
P.A. Choudhary, T.V.S.N. Chari, Badridas and Ms. V. Grover 
for the Respondents. 
H 
1090 
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
• 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
' ' 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATHAN, J. A common question is involved in all 
these matters which are, therefore, being disposed of by this common 
judgment. The question is whether tobacco seed oil and tobacco seed 
cake are entitled to exemption under the Andhra Pradesh General 
B Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.