LexSRI SIDDHI VINAYAKA COCONUT & CO. & ORS. ETC versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
440
SRI SIDDHI VINAYAKA COCONUT & CO. & ORS. ETC.
A
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
May, 2 1974
{A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW, A. ALAGIRJSWAMI, P. K. Gosw,\MI
AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.J
Andhra Pradesh Genernl Sales Tax Act as a111ended by Act Xll of 1971-
Sections 7 and 8 i·eni 5 A to Third Schedule and entries relating to '·watery
coconuts'' in Third Schedule-"JVatery coconut!.'' and dried
"coconuts''-Provi~
sion for ret:fund of tax paid-Provisions whether contravene sections 14 and 15
of Central Safes Tax A(:t.
B
The First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act contains
goods in respect of which a single point sales tax only is Jeviable under sec. 5(2)
C
(3!).
The Second Schedule contains g.oods in respect' of which a sing]e point
purchase tax only is Ieviable under sec. 5(2) (b). The Third Schedule con-
tains ded~red goods in respect of which a single point tax only ·is levjable
under sec. 6.
The Fqurth Schedule contains goods exen1pted from tax under
sec. 8.
By an amendment rnade in 1961, there was on1y one entry, '.:oconuts'
in the Third Schedule and the Fourth Schedule contained 'tender coconu.ts which
are useful only for drinking purpose"' which were exempted from ta-x.
The
explanation to the Third Schedule containing definition of the expression "coco-
D
nuts" was replaced by another explanation by the Amending Act XVI -of 1963.
The result was that th~ coconut" were divided only into two classes, "coconuts"
as defined in the explanation and the "tender coconuts". After the amendment
of 1963 certain dealers questioned their liability to tax on the purchases made
by them of w~tery coconuts. The challenge was upheld by the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Sri Krishna Coconut Co., v. Conunl. Tax Officer (16 STC 511).
Thereafter, by Amending Act 18 of 1966 the explanation in the Third Schedule
was replaced by another explanation. At the same time item 10 "watery coco-
nuts" was in:luded in the Second Schedule and to this there was add-ed
~n
E
explanation containing the definition of the expression "watery coconuts''. The
result was that for the first time "coconut's'' \\'ere divided into. three classes, tender
coconuts, watery coconuts and coconuts.
-
After this the question arose whether "watery coconuts" are oilseeds and as
such declared goods within the n1eaning of that term in item 6 of section 14 of
the Central Sales Tax Act and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
Tagoob
Moha1n11'ied v. Comm!. Tax Officer (28 STC 110) held that "w~tery coconuts''
were oilseeds. It was thereafter that the Andhra Pradesh Legislature passed
Amending Act XII of 1971 which came into force on 17-4-1971. By _this Act
item 1 O in Second Schedule relating to "watery coconuts" and the explana,-
tion thereto were omitted and this amendment was given effect to from 1-8-1963.
Item 5 of the Third S:::hedule V.'as. amended as "coconuts of all varieties"
and
a new item 5-A was introduced.
The proviso to item 5-A inter alia provided
that, where during the periods (1-8-1_963 to 31-3-1965, 1-4-1965 to 22-12-1966
and 23-12-1966 and 16-4-1971), any ta·x has been levied and collected in res·
pect of watery coconuts and where tax has also been levied and collected in
respect: of coconuts formed out of such watery coconuts. the ta·x so levied and
collected in respect of such watery coconuts shall alone be refunded.
E·Xpla-
nation 1 to Third Schedule was omitted.
The Act also introduced t\\'O ne\y
sections 7 and 8.
Section 7 seeks retrospectively to validate assessments and
collections of tax on past transactions from August 19·63 to April 1971.
Sec-
tion 8 provides for revision of a<isessn1ents.
The definition of oilseeds in iten1
(vi) to sec. 14 of the Centra·l Sales Tax Act, after Amendment Act_ LXI of
1972 which r:ame into force on 1-4-1973 read as follows: "(vi) Oilseeds. that
is to say,-(8) Coconut (i.e. copra excluding tender coconuts (cocos nucifera)".
The writ petitions tiled before the High Court of Andhra Pradtsh challenging
the validity of the new iten1 5-A and sections 7 and 8 and also the entries relat.
ing tcr wa,tery coc<";!Uts in the Third Schedule to the Prin:ipal Act on
th!
F
G
H
•.
A
B
•
•
c
D
E
F
G
•
H
V1NAYAKA COCONUT co. v. A. P. STATE (Alagiriswami, J.)
441
ground that these provisions offend ss. 14 and 15 Qf the Central Sales Tax Act,
were dismissed by the division Ben::h of the Andhra Pradesh High Court .
. Rej::cting the civilExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.