# SRI SIDDHI VINAYAKA COCONUT & CO. & ORS. ETC v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS

- **Citation:** [1975] 1 S.C.R. 440
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-04-01
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, K. K. Mathew, A. Alagirjswami, P. K. Gosw, \Mi, R. S. Sarkaria
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sri-siddhi-vinayaka-coconut-co-ors-etc-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-6344
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Andhra Pradesh Genernl Sales Tax Act as a111ended by Act Xll of 1971Sections 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 contains 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 "cocoD
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 coconuts" 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·Xplanation 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.
Section 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.

## Text

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 1971Sections 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 contains 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 "cocoD
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 coconuts" 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·Xplanation 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.
Section 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 civil appeals and the petitions under Artiile 32 of the Constitution.
HELD : Act XII of 1971 deals with the period between August 1963 to
April 1971 and validates taxes alrea:dy levied and collected. 'fherefore.
Jhe
proviso to entry 5-A of Schedule III which provides for refund does not really
suffer from the defect pointed out by the Supreme Court in Bhawani Cotton
!I-tills case (20 ST'C 290) that a provision for taxation which would not
be
ju.stifiable cannot be upheld merely on the ground that it provides a·lso for a
refund. The various periods mentioned in item 5-A are there because of historical reasons and fley arc only re-productions of provisions of earlier Jaw.
,[446E]
Decision in Rattan Lal & Co. v. Assessing Authority (25 STC 136) he1d to
apply to the fa·cts of the present caoo and not the decision in Bhawani Cotton
Al ills case.
There is no possibility of "watery coconuts" suffering tax after they becam::
dried coconuts, if they have already suffered tax as "watery :;;oconuts".
Rule 45
of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Ta·x Rules enabling the dealers in watery
•
coconuts or in dry ccconuts to includt: in their return only goods which
are
liable to tax and not those which have already suffered tax, provides sufficient
safeguards for this purpose.
[447E.-FJ
The same commodity at different sta·ges could be treated and taxed as com~
mercially different articles.
t447G]
A. Hajee Abdul Shakoor & Co.
v.
Slt{le of Madras [1964] 8 SCR 217,
Jagannath v. Union of [t1dia~ [19'62] 2 SCR 118, East India Tobacco Co. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh [1963] I sc·R 404 and Venkatn1111an v. Madras [1970] 1
SCR 615 referred to.
Commercially speaking, '\vatery coconuts'' and dried coconuts are two distinct commodities. Watery coconuts are put to a variety of uses e.g., for cooking purposes, for religious and social fun:;tions whereas dried coconuts are used
n1ainly for extracling oil.
[ 447F-G]
The Amending Act XII of 1971 also does not contra·vene sec. 15 of the
Cenlral Sales Tax Act because under the Act. thou.gh watery coconuts
and
dried coconuts arc treated separately there is a provision for refund when the
same watery coconuts, whkh have suffered the tax becom·e dry coconuts later.
[448B]
ARGUMENTS
For pet1t1vne1 s and appellants
Entry 5-A in Sch. III introduc,ed in the Act by A;;t 12 of 1971 contravenes
sec. 15 read with sec. 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act in as much as it subj'!cts
coconuts which are declared goods to taxation at two stages: namely, once at
the stage of watery coconuts and again at the stage of 'dried coconuts'. The
mere possibility of double taxation would render a taxing provision contravene
sec. 15 of the Central Act: Bhawani Cotton Mills Case (20 S.T.C. 290). But
the provision for refund in the impu.gned Act 12 of 1971 cannot cure the defect.
Secondly, the provision for refund is entirely illusory in ,character and ineffective
by reason (a) of inherent difficulty in the situation. in that no dealer can identify
that in a given case "watery coconuts" or ''coconuts" is sold by him or by a
subsequent dealer as "dried coconuts", (b) in that no dealer can have in his
possession material necessary for such identification; and (1:) Rule 45 of the
A.P. General Sales Tax Rules cannot help the dealer to trace the career of the
"watery coconuts" and ascertain w-·hether it was sold as "dry coconuts" and if
so, by whom and when.
It is not open to the State to divide the genus i.e.
"coconut", which is an oil seed, into different varieties and tax ea:;h variety a·t
a single stage and circu.rnvent the restrictions placed und;:r sec. 15 of the Central Act.
•
442
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] l s.c.R.
For the Respo11dent :
It can hardly b~ argued that becau.~e the Sta{e la\V
A
i1nposes a tax on one type of oilseed n cannot tax any oth~r kind of oil-seed.
The State Legislature has taken not~ of the realities of the trade in ,::oconub
while class1fy1ng thlm into three categories viz. "tender coconuts", '':'Watery
coconuts", and "dried coconuts''. Commoditie·.5- belonging to on.! genus have been
treated as separate and distinct entities for purposes of taxation and the courts
~,
have recognised such distinction in several·cas·.!s: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 118; [1963] 1
S.;C.R. 404; [1970] 1 S.C.R. 615; [1964] 8 S.CR. 217; A.lR. 1973 S.C. 1034
and 24 S.T.C. 430.
B
The ·SJ::heme cf the impugned Act is to tax. both
"watery
coconuts"
a:nd
''dried coconuts'' when they ccnstitute dift..erent commodities, but wh.en they
constitvte one commodity as in cas~s where·"dried coconuts" are formed out oi
"watery coconuls'', which have already been '>Ubjected to tax, to tax only ''dried
coconuts'' and r~fund the tax levied on "watery coconuts".
The impugned Act
makes the stage at which tax is to be levied amply clear and Rule 45
enablts a dealer to ascertain whether the goods had a·lready suffered tax at an
_.
earlio.er s~age.
C
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 1424 &
1612 Of
•
l 973.
.
Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of fundamental rights.
S. V. Gupte (in W.P. No. 1424/73) only, A. Subba
Rao and
G. Narayana Rao, for the petitioners/appellants).
B. Basi and P. P. Rao, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALAGlRISWAMI, J.
The question for decision in these cases
is
about the liability to sales tax under the Andhra Pradesh General
Sales Tax Act of "watery coconuts". The. Act contains four schedules.
The First Schedule contains goods in respect of which a single point
sales tax only is leviable under section 5(2)(a). The Second Schedule contains goods in respect of which a single point purchase tax
only is leviable under section 5(2)(b). The Third Schedule contains
declared goods in respect of which a single point tax only is leviable
under section 6.
The Fourth Schedule contains goods exempted from
tax under %Ction 8.
By an amendment made in 1961, there was till
1963 only one entry, 'coconuts', in the Third Schedule and the I'ourth
Schedule contained 'tender coconuts which are useful only for drinkmg purposes' which were exempted from tax.
An explanation to the
Third Schedule read as follows ;
"'fhe expression "coconuts" in this Schedule means fresh
or dried coconuts, shelled or unshelled including copra but
excluding tender coconuts.''
'
By Amending Act XVI of 1963 this explanation was replaced by
another. explanation, which read :
"The expression "coconuts" in this Schedule means dried
coconuts, shelled or unshelled including copra, but excluding
tender coconuts.''
Thus coconuts were divided only into two classes, "coconuts"
as
defined in the explanation and "tender coconuts".
D
E
F
,
G
•
H
•
• VINAYAKA COCONUT co. v. A. P. STATE (Alagiriswami, J.)
443
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
After the amendment of 1963 certain dealers questioned
their
liability to tax on the purchases made by them of watery coconuts.
That challenge was upheld by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Sri Krishna Coconut Co. v.
Comm/.
Tax
Officer (16 STC 511). The learned Judge's reasoning was that
a
fully grown coconut with a well-developed
kernel . which
contains
water could not be c,,lled either a tender or a dned coconut, and
that this was the well-known variety of coconuts used for culinary
purposes and on auspicious occasions and as part of the offerings
m temples.
He drew particular support for his conclusion from the
omission of the word "fresh" from the new explanation in the Third
Schedule .
Threafter, by Amending Act 18 of 1966 the explanation in the
Third Schedule was replaced by another explanation which read :
"The expression "coconuts" in
item 5
means
dried
coconuts, shelled or unshelled including copra, but does not
include watery coconuts falling under item 10 of the Seco.nd
Schedule and tender coconuts falling under item 9 of the
Fourth Schedule."
At the same time item IO "watery coconuts" was included m
the
Second Schedule and to this there was an explanation added which
1ead:
"The expression "watery coconuts" in item 10 includes
all coconuts other than coconuts falling under item 5 of the
Third Schedule and tender coconuts falling under item 9 of
the Fourth Schedule."
Thus for the first time "coconuts" were divided into three
clwses,
tender coconuts, watery coconuts and coconuts.
After this the questio,n arose whether
"watery
coconuts"
are
oilseeds and as such declared goods· within the meaning of that term
in item 6 of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Tagoob Mohammad v. Comm!. Tax Officer
(28 STC 110) held that "watery coconuts" were oilseeds.
It was
thereafter tl>at the Andhra Pradesh Legislature
passed
Amending
Act XII ot 1971 which came into force on 17-4-1971. By that Act
item 10 in Second Schedule relating to "watery coconuts" and
the
explanation thereto were omitted and this amendment was given effect
to from 1-8-1963.
Item 5 of the Third Schedule was amended as
"coconuts of all varieties•· and a new item 5-A was introduced which
reads as follows :
"5-A.
Watery
Coconuts
(i) At the point of last purchase in the State
during the period commencing on the 1st
August, 1963 and ending with the 31st
March, 1965.
2 paise in
the rnpee
(ii) At the point of first sale in the State
2 paise in
during the period commencing on the 1st the rupee
444
(iii)
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 1 s.c.R:.
April, 1965 and ending with the
22nd
December, 1966.
At the point of first purchase in the State
during the period commencing on the
23rd December J 966, and ending with
the date immediately before the date of
the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales
Tax (Amendment)
Act, 1971 :
Provided .that where during the aforesaid periods, any tax has been levied and
collected in respect of watery
coconuts
and where tax has also been levied ana
collected
in
respect
of
coconuts
formed out of such watery coconuts, the
tax so levied and collected in respect of
such watery coconuts shall alone be refunded."
3 paise in
the rupee
A
B
c
Explanation I to Third Schedule which related to a
definition
of
I>
"coconut" was also omitted. The Act also
introd need
two
new
sections, ss. 7 and 8 which read as follows :
"7. Validation of assessments ·etc.
(I) Notwithstanding anything in any judgment, decree
or order of any Court or other authority to the contrary,
and subject to the provisions of section 8, any assessment,
E
re-assessment, levy or collection of any tax made or purporting to have been made, a,ny action or thing taken or
done in relation to such assessment, re-assessment, levy or
collection under the provisions of the principal Act before
the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to be as
valid and effective as if such asS.!'Ssment, re-assessment, levy
or collection or actio,n or thing had been made,
taken or
F
done under the principal Act as amended by this Act and
accordingly-
( a) al( acts, proceedings or things done or
taken by
the State Government or by any officer of the State Govemment or by any other authority in
connection
with
the
assessment, re-assessment, levy or collection of such
tax
G
<hall for all purposes, be deemed to be and to have a!wavs
been, done or taken in accordance with law;
( b) no suit or other proceedings shall be maintained or
continued in any court or before any authority for the re-·
fund of any such tax; a,nd .
( c) no court shall enforce anv decree or order directing
H
the refund of any such tax.
(2) It is hereby declared that nothing in subrsection (t)i
shall be construed as preventing any person :
•
A
B
•
c
D
E
F
G
'
H
V!NAYAKA COCONUT co. V. A. P. STATE (A/agiriswami, !.)
445
(a) from questioning in accordance with the provisions
of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, any assessment, re ,assessment,, levy or collection of tax referred to in
sub-section (1); or
·
(b) from claiming refund of any tax paid by
him in
excess of the amount due from him by way of tax
under
the principal Act as amended by this Act :
Provided that every application for any relief under this
sub-section shall be made by the person concerned to the
assessing authority within a period of one year from the
date of the commencement of this Act and
the assessing
authority may, after making such inquiry as he deems necessa~y and after giving tl:·e person concerned an opportunity
of being he arc', pass such order as he deems fit."
"8. Revision of assessment on coconuts :
(!) Notwithstanding anything in any judgment, decree
or order of any court or other authority to the contrary, the
assessing authority may assess or re-assess the amount of
tax payable by tile dealer on his turnover relating to coconuts
of all varieties during the period commencing on the
1st
August, 1963 and ending with the date immediately before
the date of the commencement of this Act, in accordance
with the provisions of the principal Act, as amended by this
Act.
(2) Notwithstanding the expiration of any of the periods
specified in section 14 of the principal Act, an assessment
or re-assessment under sub section (I) may be made within
a period of one year from the date of commencement of this
A·::t."
Another statutory provision which should be noticed is section 14
of the Central Sales Tax Act with regard to what are called declared
goods.
Item (vi) therein originally read as follows:
"(vi) oil-seeds, that is to say, seeds yielding non-vo1"tile
oils used for human consumption, or in industry, or
in the manufacture of varnishes, soaps and the like,
or in lubrication and volatile oils used
chiefly
in
medicines, perfumes, cosmetics and the like'";
By Amendment Act LXI of 1972, which came into effect on 1-4-73
it was amended as follows :
"(vi) Oilseeds, that is to say, -
(8) Coconut (i.e. copra excluding tender coconuts (cocos
nuciferc.) ~"
446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 1 s.c.R.
After the amendments made by Act XII of 1971 a number of
writ petitions were filed before the High C?~rt of Judicature,. Andhra
Pradesh.
They were all dismissed by a D1v1s1on Bench cons1stmg of
the learned Chief Justice and Justice Lakshmaiah. The civil appeals
are by 'some of the petitioners therein and the writ petitions are
filed by certain other dealers direct to this Court under Art. 32 of the
Constitution.
It is unnecessary to consider whether the Andhra Pradesh High
Court was right in its decision that watery coconut is an oilseed for
the reasons givc,n by them, especially after the amendment made by
the Central Act which seems to proceed on the basis that only copra
is an oilseed. as the Andhra Pradesh Act proceeds rm the_ basis that
watery coconut is also an oilseed.
That amendment apphe.s only to
the period after l April 1973 and these appeals and petitions relate
to the period before 17 April 1971.
Mr. Basi Reddy appearing for
the State of Andhra Pradesh does not seek to question this finding
either.
Undoubtedly. it is the watery coconut that in
due
course
becomes dry coconut or copra. ·Mr. Basi Re.cldy does not even seek
to argue that the same watery coconut after having suffered tax should
also be taxed as dry coconut.
The first point to be noticed about the 1971 amendment is that
in one of its- aspects it deals with the period between August 1963
to April 1971 and validates taxes already levi·ed and collected. Therefore, the proviso to entry 5cA of Schedule III which provides
for
refund does not really suffer from the defect pointed 9ut by thts Court
in Bhawani Cotton Mills case (20 STC 290) that a provision for
taxation which would not be justifiable cannot be upheld merely on
the ground that it provides also for a refund.
The various periods
mentioned i,n item 5-A are there because of historical reasons and
they are only re-productions of provisions of earlier law.
The deci--
sion in the Bhawani Cotton Mills case on whi~h the petitioners relied
cannot apply in this case because in the Act there under consideration
there was no provision indicating the stage at which the tax was to
be levied.
The very same levy was upheld in Rattan Lal & Co. v.
Assessing Authority (25 STC 136) after the Act was amended by
specifying the stage as the last purchase or sale of declared goods by
a dealer liable to pay the tax and making the stage quite clear. ·and •
by giving the dealer an option not to include other transactions in
his returns and thus saving him from the liabili!J to pay the tax till
he was the dealer liable to pay the tax.
This Court then pointed out
that the
information
whether
his was the last purchase or sale
~as alw~ys J?Ossessed by a dealer and by providing that he need not
mclude m his turnover any transaction except when ·he was the last
dealer, the position was made clear. It is this decision that will be
applicable to the facts of this case.
In this connection we may point out that the
provisions
of
Rule 45 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules are similar.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
1
H
•
..
. ,.
'
'
A
B
c
VJNAYAKA COCONUT co. v. A. P. STATE (Alagiriswami, J.)
44 7
J t provides that "every dealer has to maintain a true and. correct
account showing the value of the goods
produced,
manufactured,
bought and sold by him,. the names and addresses of . the persons
from whom goods were purchased, supported by a bill or delivery
note issued by the seller.
Every dea1cr carrying on business in the
goods specified in the First, Second and Third Schedules whose total
turnover exceeds Rs. 10,000 ·a year and every other dealer whose
tur,nover exceeds Rs. 20,000 a year shall
issue
a
bill or cash
memorandum in respect of every sale involving an amount of Rs. 5
or more.
Every such bill or cash memorandum shall b'· duly signed
and dated and a counterfoil shall be kept by the deab. The hills
or cash memoranda issued by a dealer shall be serially numbered for
each year and in each of the bills or cash memoranda issued
the
dealer shall specify ·:he full name and style of his
business,
the
number of bis registration certificate, the particulars of goods sold
and the price thereof and in the case of sales to a dealer the full
name and address and the number of the registration certificate of the
purchaser.
The bill or cash mem.oranda issued in the case of sales
of goods liable to a single point tax shall contain the following certificate .... "Certified that in respect of the turnover of the goods menD . tioned in item(s) of this bill the tax has been paid or/is
payable
by me or is payable by Sri/M / s. . . . . boing the dwler who has
purchased them from me."
These make it amply clear that there
can be no question of either a dealer in watery coconuts or in dry
coco.nuts having to pay a tax over again hereafter.
They can include
in their return only goods which are liable to tax and need not include
E
F
G
H
those which have already suffered tax.
Another aspect of the 1971 Act that as a result of it there are
two entries, 5 and 5A in Schedule III, namely
'coconuts
of
all
varieties' and 'watery coconuts' there is no possibility
of
'watery
coconuts, suffering tax after they become dried coconuts, if they have
already suffered tax as 'watery coconuts'. Rule 45 provides sufficient
safeguards for this purpose.
We also accept the conten.tion put forward dn behalf
of
the
State of Andhra Pradesh that 'watery coconuts' and 'dried coconuts'
are two distinct commodities commercially speaking.
Watery coconuts
are put to a variety of uses e.g., for cooking purposes. for religious
and social functio,ns whereas dried coconuts are used mainly
for
extracting oil.
This Court has in a number of cases held that the
same commodity at different stages could be treated and taxed
as
commercially different articles.
In A. Hajee Abdul Shakoor & Co .
v. State of Madras (1964 8 SCR 217) this Court held that "hides
and skins in the untanned condition are undoubtedly different
as
articles of merchandise than tanned hides and skins" and pointed out
that "the fact that certain articles are me,ntioned under the ·same
heading in a statute or the constitution. does not mean that they all
constitute one commodity."
We may also refer to the decisions
in
Jagam1ath v. Union of India (1962 2 SCR 118) where tobacco in the
whole leaf and tobacco in the broken leaf were treated as two different
'
448
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1975] 1 S.C.R.
commodities, East India Tobacco Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(1963 1 SCR 404) where virginia tobacco and country tobacco were
treated as two different commodities, and Venkataraman v. Madras
(1970 1 SCR 615) where cane jaggery and palm jaggery were treated
as two different commodities.
We do not think that the Act can be said to contravene sectio.n 15
of the Central Sales Tax Act.
Under the Act though watery coconu's
and dried coconuts are treated separately there is a provision for refund
when the same watery coconuts, which have suffered tax, become dry
coconut 1ater. It is for this continge,ncy that, as we
have
pointed
out earlier, provision for refund is made.
In any case in the future
no difficulty wonld arise as we pointed out earlier.
A
In the result all the writ petitions and
appeals
are dismissed.
C
The appellants and writ petitioners will pay the co;;tsof the State of
Andhra Pradesh, one set.
V.M.K.
PeliUons & appeals dismissed.
•
•
I