Assam Seeds Corporation Limited vs Commissioner Of Taxes And Ors. on 5 October, 2005
In S.S.E. Private Ltd. v. State of Assam (2005) 2 GLR 468, this High Court has observed that if a particular item is defined by the statute in specific terms there will be little problem. In preference to the common parlance or the trade test or even the common sense approach, the meaning as ascribed by the definition clause must be adopted. The question of judicial interpretation would really arise when a particular product/item or commodity is not defined by the statute. In such a situation the law for the last several decades has been that it is the common parlance test that must be adopted and to the extent possible the technical or scientific meaning or even the dictionary meaning must be avoided. In Ramavatar
Budhaiprasad [1961] 12 STC 286, the honourable Supreme Court had laid down the law to the above effect while being confronted with a question whether betel leaves are vegetables. The above law has been reiterated in a subsequent decision by the Supreme Court in case of Motipur Zamindary Co. (Private) Ltd. [1962] 13 STC 1, where the question was whether sugarcane would be a vegetable.