LexRAMAVATAR BUDHAIPRASAD ETC. versus ASSISTANT SALES TAX OFFICER, AKOLA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. I • 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 279 RAMAVATAR BUDHAIPRASAD ETC. v. ASSISTANT SALES TAX OFFICER, AKOLA (S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH and T. L. VENKATARAMA ArYAR, JJ.) Sales Tax-'Betel leaves', iftaxable-'Vegetables', Meaning of -Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, r947 (C. P. XXI of r947), s. 6(r)(2), Second Schedule, Items Nos. 6 and 36 . The petitioners who were dealers in betel leaves were asses- sed to sales tax by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer under the provisions of the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The contention of the petitioners was that under s. 6 read with the second schedule of the Act betel leaves were not taxable. Under s. 6 of the Act articles mentioned in the said Schedule were exempt from Sales Tax and articles not mentioned were taxable. There were two items in the Schedule, namely, item 6, "vege- tables", and item 36, "betel leaves", but subsequently item No. 36 was omitted by an amendment of the Act. Held, that the use of two distinct and different items i.e., "vegetables" and "betel leaves" and the subsequent removal of betel leaves from the Schedule were indicative of the Legis- lature's intention of not exempting betel leaves from taxation. The word "vegetable" must be interpreted not in a technical sense but in its popular sense as understood in common language i.e., denoting a class of vegetables which are grown in a kitchen garden or on a farm and are used for the table. Planters Nut Chocolate Co. Ltd. v. The King, (1952) l Dom· L.R. 385, Madhya Pradesh Pan Merchants' Association, Santra Market, Nagpur v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Sales Tax Depart- ment), [1956] 7 S.T.C. 99, Bhairondon Tolaram v. The State of Rajas- than, [1957] 8 S.T.C. 798, Kokil Ram & Sons v. The State of Bihar, [1949] r S.T.C. 217 and Dharam Das Paul v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, [1958] 8 S.T.C. 194, considered . Brahma Nand v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, [1956] 7 S.T.C. 206 and Firm Shri Krishna Chaudhry v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, [1956] 7 S.T.C. 742, referred to. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 4, 36 and 37 of 1958. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. R. Ganapathy Iyer and K. L. Hathi, for the peti- tioners. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, B. R. L. Iyengar and T. M. Sen, for the respondents. z96z March 14. Ramaualar 280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] 1961. March 14. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Budhaip,asad Etc. KAPUR, J.-These are three petitions under Art. 32 , . 1 v.1 5 1 of the Constitution challenging the imposition of sales .nssis an a es Ta• Officer, Akola tax on betel leaves by the Sales Tax Officer, Akola. The question raised in all the three p_etitions is the Kapur J. 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 ofl\Iaharashtra 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 XXI of 1947), hereinafter termed the "Act" to the payment of sales tax as follows: Writ Petition No. Period W.P. No. 4/58 W.P. No. 36/58 W.P. No. 37/58 7-11-53 to 26-10-54. & 27-10-54 to 14-11-55. 27-10-54 to 26-10-55. 27-10-54 to 14-11-55. Amount Rs. 1882-9-0 Rs. 1885-13-0 Rs. 1890-3-0 Rs. 3530-4-0 The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 4 and 36 did not appeal under s. 22 of the Act but the petitioner in W. P. 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 Art, 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 peti- tioners is that the order demanding tax was without authority of law inasmuch as betel leaves were not taxable under s. 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 • I ' • 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 281 or business guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Con- z96z stit1;1tion. and t~e prayer is for the issue _of a writ of Ramavatar certiorari quashmg the order of the Assistant Sales Budhaiprasad Et,, Tax Officer and for prohibit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.