436 and 37 of 1958
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights
R Ganapathy Iyer and K L Hathi for the petitioners
C K Paphtary Solicitor General of India B R L Iyengar an P M Sen for the respondents
280 1961
March 14
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J
These are three petitions under article 32 of the Constitution challenging the imposition of sales tax on betel leaves by the Sales Tax Officer Akola
The question raised in all the three petitions is the same and can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment
The petitioners in the three petitions are dealers in betel leaves at Akola now in the State of Maharashtra and at the relevant time in the State of Madhya Pradesh
The Assistant Sales Tax Officer at Akola assessed the petitioners under the provisions of the C P  Berar Sales Tax Act 1947 Act XXI of 1947 hereinafter termed the Act to the payment of gales tax as follows Writ Petition period Amount No WP No 458 7 11 53 to 26 10 54
Rs 1882 9 0  27 10 54 to 14 11 55
Rs 1885 13 0 WP No 3658 27 10 54 to 26 10 55
Rs 1890 3 0 WP
No 3758 27 10 54 to 14 11 55
Rs 3530 4 0 The petitioners in W P Nos 4 and 36 did not appeal under section 22 of the Act but the petitioner in W P No 37 did appeal under that section
As he did not deposit the amount of tax the petition was dismissed
He then filed a petition under article 226 in the High Court of Nagpur but that petition was withdrawn and therefore no decision was given on the merits of the case
In all the petitions the submission of the petitioners is that the order demanding tax was without authority of law inasmuch as betel leaves were not taxable under section 6 read with the second Schedule of the Act
The imposition of the tax it is alleged
is an infringement of the petitioners  right to carry on trade 281 or business guaranteed under article 191g of the Con stitution and the prayer is for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Assistant Sales Tax Officer and for prohibition
Section 6 of the Act under which the exemption is claimed provides S61 No tax shall be payable under this Act on the Sale of goods specified in the second column of Schedule II subject to the conditions
and exceptions if any set out in the corresponding entry in the third column thereof 2The State Government may after giving by notification not less than one month s notice of their intention so to do by a notification after the expiry of the period of notice mentioned in the first notification amend either Schedule and thereupon such Schedule shall he deemed to be amended accord ingly Thus under the Act all articles mentioned in the Schedule were exempt from Sales Tax and articles not so specified were taxable
In the Schedule applicable there were originally two items which are relevant for the purposes of the case
They were items Nos 6 and 36 Item 6 Vegetables Except when sold in sealed containers
Item 36 Betel leaves
The Schedule was amended by the C P  Berar Sales Tax Amendment Act Act XVI of 1948 by which item No 36 was omitted
It is contended that in spite of this omission they were exempt from Sales Tax as they are vegetables
The intention of the legislature in regard to what is vegetables is shown by its specifying vegetables and betel leaves as separate items in the Schedule exempting articles from Sales Tax
Subsequently betel leaves were removed from the Schedule which is indicative of the legislature s intention of not exempting betel leaves from the imposition of the tax
But it was submitted that betel leaves are vegetables and therefore they would be exempt from Sales Tax under item 6
Reliance was placed on the 36 282 dictionary meaning of the word vegetable as given in Shorter Oxford Dictionary where the word is defined as of or pertaining to comprised or consisting of or derived or obtained from plants or their parts
But this word must be construed not in any technical sense nor from the botanical point of view but as understood in common parlance
It has not been defined in the Act and being a word of every day use it must be construed in its popular sense meaning that sense which people conversant with the subject matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it
 It is to be construed as understood in common language Caries on Statute Law p 153 5th Ed
It was so  held in Planters Nut Chocolate Co Ltd vs The King 1
This interpretation was accepted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Madhya Pradesh Pan Merchants  Association Santra Market Nagpur vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Department 2 where it was observed In our opinion the word vegetables cannot be given the comprehensive meaning the term bears in natural history and has not been given that meaning in taxing statutes before
The term vegetables is to be understood as commonly understood denoting those classes of vegetable matter which are grown in kitchen gardens and are used for the table
 In that case the word vegetables was construed and in our opinion correctly construed in relation to the very provisions of the Act which are now in controversy before us
In cases under the U P Sales Tax Act betel leaves have been held not to be within the expression green vegetables Brahma Nand vs The State of Uttar Pradesh3 Firm Shri Krishna Chaudhry V Commissioner of Sales Tax 4
In Bhairondon Tolaram vs The State of Rajasthan 5 they were held not to be plants and in Kokil Ram  Sons vs The State of Bihar 6 it was held that vegetables meant plants cultivated for food and Paw are not foodstuffs
in Dharamdas Paul vs Commissioner of Commercial 1 389
3 19567 STC 2o6
5 1957 8 STC 798
2 19567 STC 99 102
4 1956 7 STC 742
6 19491 STC 217 283 Taxes also they were held not to be vegetables which specifically meant Sabzi Tarkari and Sak
Therefore part from the fact that the legislature by using two distinct and different items ie item 6 vegetables and item No 36 betel leaves has indicated its intention decided cases also show that the word vegetables in taxing statutes is to be understood as in common parlance ie denoting class of vegetables which are grown in a kitchen garden or in a farm and are used for the table
In our view betel leaves are not exempt from taxation
Those petitions therefore fail and are dismissed with costs
One hearing fee
Petitions dismissed


Summary:
The petitioners who were dealers in betel leaves were asses sed to sales tax by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer under the provisions of the C P and Berar Sales Tax Act 1947
The contention of the petitioners was that under section 6 read with the second schedule of the Act betel leaves were not taxable
Under section 6 of the Act articles mentioned in the said Schedule were exempt from Sales Tax and articles not mentioned were taxable
There were two items in the Schedule namely item 6 vegetables and item 36 betel leaves but subsequently item No 36 was omitted by an amendment of the Act
Held that the use of two distinct and different items ie vegetables and betel leaves and the subsequent removal of betel leaves from the Schedule were indicative of the Legislature s intention of not exempting betel leaves from taxation
The word vegetable must be interpreted not in a technical sense but in its popular sense as understood in common language ie denoting a class of vegetables which are grown in a kitchen garden or on a farm and are used for the table
Planters Nut Chocolate Co Ltd vs The King 1952 1 Dom
LR 385 Madhya Pradesh Pan Merchants  Association Santra Market Nagpur vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Departmwnt 1956 7 STC 99 Bhairondon Tolaram vs The State of Rajasthan 1957 8 STC 798 Kokil Ram  Sons vs The State of Bihar 1949 1 STC 217 and Dharam Das Paul vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 1958 8 STC 194 considered
Brahma Nand vs The State of Uttar Pradesh 1956 7 STC 206 and Firm Shri Krishna Chaudhry vs Commissioner of Sales Tax 1956 7 STC 742 referred to