Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(5)ALD302, 1997(3)ANWR76
Author: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
Bench: S.S. Mohammed Quadri, V. Rajagopala Reddy
JUDGMENT Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.
1. The petitioner is a dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"). It carries on business in foodgrains, dalls, dry fruits, etc. For the assessment year 1977-78 he was assessed on turnover of Rs. 89,48,918.87. Part of the turnover related to sale of almonds. The petitioner claimed that the turnover related to second sales of dry fruits and therefore it was entitled to exemption. That was not accepted by the departmental authorities as well as by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following its earlier order the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in so far as it relates to the abovesaid disputed turnover on October 12, 1988. That order gave rise to the present revision.
2. The learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes relying upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in M. P. Agarwalla & Co. v. Director of Entry Tax, West Bengal [1978] 41 STC 258, contends that almond is not a dry fruit, that it is a seed-nut, that it falls in general goods and that therefore the order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference.
3. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that there is no pulp or fleshy substance in almond seed so it cannot be described as a dry fruit. In our opinion the view taken by the Tribunal is wholly untenable; if a fruit has pulp or fleshy substance as in the case of mango, it is a fresh fruit and not a dry fruit. It is only when pulp or other fleshy substance is completely dried up as in the case of apricot, it gets converted into "dry fruit" and sold in the market as "dry fruit". In the judgment [M.P. Agarwalla & Co. v. Director of Entry Tax, West Bengal [1978] 41 STC 258 (Cal)] relied upon by the Special Government Pleader for Taxes the question was whether almond seeds were covered by the meaning of the word "nut" as defined in clause (iv) of section 2 of the Ordinance, promulgated in 1977 to amend the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1972. The word "nut" was defined as follows :
"nuts including groundnuts, almonds, badam, pista, anardana, badamgiri, cashewnuts, walnuts and all other varieties of nuts not elsewhere specified in the Schedule but excluding betel nuts."
The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (M.P. Agarwalla & Co. v. Director of Entry Tax, West Bengal [1978] 41 STC 258) was considering as to whether almond and pista would fall within that definition and having regard to its phraseology, the court held that almond seeds fell within that definition. Here we are not interpreting the same provision. The entry which falls for our consideration is entry 112 in the First Schedule to the Act which reads thus :
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S. Description Point of levy Rate of Effective No. of goods tax from
-----------------------------------------------------------------
112 Dry fruits At the point of first sale 6 paise 1-3-1974.
in the State. in the
rupee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
4. Here the expression is "dry fruit", but it is not defined in the Act. Therefore, it has to be understood in the sense in which it is perceived among English speaking people; "dry fruit" means "fruit which contains no moisture or water or a fruit from which moisture or water is evaporated and is in dried condition". "Almond" in common parlance is understood as "dry fruit" and in trade also it is known as "dry fruit". In view of the common parlance test and in view of the meaning of the word "almond" in the English language, "almond" means "the oval nut like seed (kernel) of the stone fruit from the tree prunus dulcis of which there are sweet and bitter varieties" [Concise] we are of the view that almond seeds fall within the meaning of "dry fruit" in entry 112 of the First Schedule to the Act. We would like to clarify that the fact that it is in the form of nut will not militate against classifying it as "dry fruit". In this view of the matter, we set aside the order under revision.
The revision is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
5.Petition allowed.