In the Supreme Court of India
DECIDED ON-: 14th March, 1961
BENCH-: Justice Kapur
FACTS
The petitioners, who were betel leaf dealers, underwent assessment for sales tax by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer under the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The crux of the petitioners' argument was based on Section 6 in conjunction with the second schedule of the Act, asserting that betel leaves were not subject to taxation. Section 6 of the Act delineated that articles specified in the second schedule were exempt from sales tax, while those not listed were deemed taxable. Initially, there were two items in the schedule: item 6 denoting "vegetables" and item 36 specifying "betel leaves." However, through an amendment to the Act, item No. 36, pertaining to betel leaves, was subsequently omitted from the schedule. The contention of the petitioners rested on the exclusion of betel leaves from the second schedule due to the amendment, arguing that as betel leaves were no longer explicitly mentioned in the schedule, they should not be subjected to sales tax under the provisions of the Act.
ISSUES
The core issue presented to the court revolved around the applicability of sales tax to the sale of betel leaves. The appellant's argument cantered on the premise that no tax should be imposed on the sale of betel leaves because they were categorized as vegetables, an item for which taxation was not applicable. The appellant contended that betel leaves fell within the classification of vegetables, which were explicitly exempted from taxation on sales. Hence, they asserted that the sale of betel leaves should not be subjected to any sales tax as per the provisions that exempted taxation on the sale of vegetables.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court concluded that the presence of two distinct items, "vegetables" and "betel leaves," in the schedule, followed by the subsequent exclusion of betel leaves, signified the legislative intent to not exempt betel leaves from taxation. This observation was crucial in determining the interpretation of the law.
In interpreting the term "vegetable," the court emphasized the necessity to consider its meaning not solely in a technical or specific context but rather in its broader, common understanding as perceived in everyday language. The term was to be construed in its popular sense, indicating a category of vegetables typically cultivated in a kitchen garden or farm and primarily used for culinary purposes at the table. Therefore, the exclusion of betel leaves from the exemption indicated that they did not fall within the popular understanding of "vegetables" and were hence subject to taxation under the law.
Comments