Supreme Court of India
Bharuch Coconut Trading Co. And Ors vs Municipal Corporation Of The City ... on 27 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 494, 1990 SCR SUPL. (3) 392, AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 494, 1992 (1) SCC(SUPP) 298, (1991) 1 JT 234 (SC), 1991 ALL TAXJ 403, 1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 298, 1991 (1) JT 234, 1991 (1) UJ (SC) 298
PETITIONER:
BHARUCH COCONUT TRADING CO. AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OFAHMEDABAD AND OTHERS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/11/1990
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
KULDIP SINGH (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 494 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 392
1992 SCC Supl. (1) 298 JT 1991 (1) 234
1990 SCALE (2)1157
ACT:
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Act/Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation Rules--Rule 4 Item Nos. 10, 11 and 55--Watery
coconut (brown coconut)--Eligibility to octroi.
HEADNOTE:
The appellants import and sell the brown coconut (watery
coconut) from the States of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnata-
ka and Tamil Nadu and sell the same in the city of Ahmedabad
as their trading activity. Under the Municipal Corporation
rules, whenever goods are carried into or out of the octroi
limits of the Municipal Corporation, the articles specified
under the rules are liable to octroi, except of course those
exempted under Item 10 of Rule 4. The respondents levied
octroi on brown coconuts at the rate of Rs.1 per 100 kgm. at
the point of import into the octroi limits of the Respond-
ent's corporation. The rate was later enhanced to Rs.5 per
100 kg. The appellants challenged the levy of octroi on
brown coconuts by means of filling a writ petition
contending that brown coconuts are green fruits within the
meaning of item 10 of rule 4 of the Rules and therefore,
they are exempted articles, not exigible to octroi. The High
Court rejected the writ petition. Hence this appeal, by
special leave.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: The watery coconut (brown coconut) is not a green
fruit but is a separate entity by itself. it cannot also be
considered to be a dry fruit within the meaning of entry 11
of Rule 4. Dried fruit is distinct from the coconut. There-
fore, the watery coconut (brown coconut) does not fall
within the meaning of item 13B of Rule 4. of the Rules also.
All articles or goods which are not specified elsewhere in
the schedule or in the list of exempted articles or goods
would fall under item 55 of Rule 14. Brown coconut is not an
exempted article among the list of articles in item 10 of
Rule, namely, green fruit Brown coconut (watery coconut)
would fall within item 55 of Rule 14 of the Rules and is
exigible to octroi. [397D-E]
393
Ramavtar Budhaiprasad v. Asstt. Sales Tax Officer,
Akola, [1961] 12 STC 286; Commissioner of Sales Tax,
U.P.v.S.N. Brothers, [1973] 31 STC 302; P.S. Thillai Chidam-
bara Nadar v. Addl. Appellate Asstt. Corotar., Madurai and
Anr., [1985] 60 STC 80; Sri Krishna Coconut Co. v. Commer-
cial Tax Officer, Amalapuram, [1965] 16 STC 511; Kunchi
Rajeshwara Sastry and Sons and Anr. v. Asstt. Commissioner
of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada and Ors., [1976] 37 STC 399;
Sri Lakshmi Coconut Industries v. The State of Karnataka and
Anr., [1980] 46 STC 404; Deputy Commissioner of Agrl. Income ï7
3
and Commissioner of Sales-tax v. Ram Kumar Nand Kumar,
[1973] 31 STC 321, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
