# RAMAVATAR BUDHAIPRASAD ETC v. ASSISTANT SALES TAX OFFICER, AKOLA

- **Citation:** [1962] 1 S.C.R. 279
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Bench:** S. K. Das, J. L. Kapur, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah, T. L. VENKATARAMA ArYAR
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ramavatar-budhaiprasad-etc-v-assistant-sales-tax-officer-akola-2017
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

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 assessed 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, "vegetables", 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 Legislature'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 Department), [1956] 7 S.T.C. 99, Bhairondon Tolaram v. The State of Rajasthan, [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 petitioners.
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 petitioners 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) o

## Text

..
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 assessed 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, "vegetables", 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 Legislature'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 Department), [1956] 7 S.T.C. 99, Bhairondon Tolaram v. The State of Rajasthan, [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 petitioners.
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 petitioners 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 Conz96z
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 prohibition.
v.
Section 6 of the Act under which the exemption is Assistant Sales
claimed provides:
Ta> Ojfi&er. Akola
S. 6(1) "No tax shall be payable under this Acton
the sale of goods specified in the second column of
Kapur 1·
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 whichare relevant for
the purposes of the case. They were items Nos. 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 XVI of 1948) by
which item No. 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 art.icles 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
36
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
r96r
dictionary meaning of the word "vegetable" as given
R
in Shorter Oxford Dictionary where the word is definamavatar
d
" f
t • ·
t
· d
· ·
f
Budhaiprasad Etc. e as o or per ammg o, comprise or cons1stmg o ,
v.
or derived, or obtained from plants or their parts".
Assistant Sales But this word must be construed not in any technical
Tax Officer, Akola sense nor from the botanical point of view but as
Kapur ]
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, p. 153 (5th
Ed.). It was so held in Planters Nut Chocolate Co.
Ltd. v. The King (1). 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)(') 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('); Firm Shri Krishna Chaudhry
v. Commisioner of Sales Tax('). In Bhairondon
Tolaram v. The State of Rajasthan (5) they were held
not to be plants and in Kokil Ram & Sons v. The
State of Bihar ('), it was held that vegetables meant
plants cultivated for food and Pans are not foodstuffs.
In Dharamdas Paul v. Commissioner of Commercial
(1) (1952) I Bom. L.R. 385, 38g.
(3) [1956] 7 S. T.C. 206.
(,;) [1957] 8 S.T.C. 798.
(2) [1956] 7 S.T.C. 99, 1oz.
W [1956] 7 S.T.C. 74z.
(6) [1949] 1 S.T.C. 217.
-
v •
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
283
Taxes (1 ), also they were held not to be vegetables
'96'
which specifically meant Sabzi, Tarkari and Sak. ThereRamavatar
fore apart from the fact that the legislature by using Budhaiprasad Etc.
two distinct and different items i.e. item 6 "vegetav.
hies" and item No. 36 "betel leaves" has indicated its Assista"t Sales
intention, decided cases also show that the word Tax Officer. Akola
"vegetables" in taxing statutes is to be understood as
Kapur J.
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
with costs. One hearing fee.
Petitions dismissed.
M/s. NAND LAL RAJ KISHAN
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, DELHI
AND ANOTHER
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH,
J.C. SHAH, and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.)
Sales Tax Act-Security demanded for payment of tax-V alidity of-Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) (Delhi Amendment) Act, r956
(Act r7 of z956), s. 8A.
The validity of s. SA of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax
(Delhi Amendment) Act, 1956, enabling the Commissioner of
Sales Tax to demand security from dealers for payment of tax
was challenged by the petitioners on the grounds that (i) the
section gave undefined, unlimited and unrestricted power to the
com1nissioner, (ii) no limit was fixed for the amount of security,
and (iii) the section did not provide for any enquiry before the
demand of security, nor did it provide for an opportunity of
being heard being given to the person against whom the order
was proposed to be passed.
Held, that• s. SA did not give any unlimited or unrestricted
power to the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The power of the
Commissioner of Sales Tax was subject to the condition that it
(l) [1958] 9 S.T.C. 194.
March r4.