IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 S.T.Rev.No.249 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------- T.A.NO.523/1987 OF THE KERALSALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH-I, PALAKKAD (ORDER DATED 15.3.2001) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1985-86) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/REVENUE:- -------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE:- ------------------------------------------------------------- LAKSHMI VILAS BOARDING AND LOADGING, DEALER IN COOKED FOOD, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SMT.MEENA.A. SMT.M.R.MINI SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------ S.T.Rev.No.249 of 2004 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 8th day of January, 2008 ORDER K.M.Joseph, J. Assessment in respect of the assessee for the year 1985-86 was completed by the assessing officer by finding that 'Laddu' and 'Jilebi' are to be assessed as sweets. The Tribunal in appeal carried by the State against the order of the appellate authority took the view that 'Laddu' and 'Jilebi' are cooked food and therefore entitled to be treated as exempted under Entry 12 of the Third Schedule. 2. Entry 12 of the Third Schedule reads as follows: “12. Cooked food including coffee, tea and like articles served in a hotel, restaurant or any other place not falling under entry 57 of the First schedule.” 3. Entry 20A of the First Schedule reads as follows: “20A. Sweets not elsewhere mentioned in this Schedule Coffee, tea, spices and manufactures thereof.” 4. The State being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal has preferred this revision petition raising the following questions of law for our consideration. “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal has erred in deciding that Sweets such S.T.Rev.No.249 of 2004 2 as Jilebi, Leddu etc. manufactured and sold by hotels are cooked food and hence not liable to tax. 2. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is the items such as Jelibi and Ledu manufactured and sold would fall under entry 20 of the 1st schedule and taxable @ 8%.” 5. According to the State, there was a specific entry dealing with the articles in question, namely Entry 20A of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, ('the Act' for short). The learned Government Pleader also relies on the decision of this Court in Philips Smith & Others v. Additional Sales tax Officer (1984 KLT 483) which in fact has been relied on by the assessing authority as well. 6. In Philip Smith's case supra this Court following the decision of the apex Court in Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow [(1981) 48 STC 254] has held as follows: “The contention that biscuits, puffs, jilabee, ladoo etc. are articles of 'cooked food' under item (12) in Schedule III is a slender assumption in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in 48 STC 254. Ordinarily biscuit is not understood as cooked food and it cannot be treated as cooked food. If this is the view to be taken about the meaning of 'cooked food' in Schedule III of our enactment also, almost all the contentions of the petitioners will have to fail. But it is not necessary to express a final opinion on the question for the present purposes.” S.T.Rev.No.249 of 2004 3 7. We also notice that in the decision of the apex Court in Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co., the Court has held as follows: “It is a well-settled rule of construction that the words used in a law imposing a tax should be construed in the same way in which they are understood in ordinary parlance in the area in which the law is in force. If an expression is capable of a wider meaning as well as narrower meaning the question whether the wider or the narrower meaning should be given depends on the context and the background of the case. In Hinde v. Allmond (1) (1918) 87 L.J.K.B.893, the question was whether tea was an “article of food” within the meaning of an order designed to prohibit the hoarding of food, namely, Food Hoarding Order of 1917. The leaned Judges held it was not, even though in some other decisions it had been held to be an “article of food.” 8. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the items in question are food items, which are cooked and therefore, are liable to be treated as cooked food. 9. It is true that in a wider sense it could be said that there is a process of cooking before 'Laddu' or 'Jilebi' is made. However, having regard to the context in which the words 'cooked food' figure in the Entry and further, more importantly, having regard to the fact that there is a special entry, namely 'Sweets' as contained in Entry 20A of the First Schedule to the Act, the result would be inevitable that the articles 'Laddu' and 'Jilebi' are to be treated as 'sweets' liable to be taxed under Entry 20A of the First Schedule to the Act. S.T.Rev.No.249 of 2004 4 Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the assessing authority was perfectly justified. There is no basis on which the Tribunal could have taken a different view. In such circumstances, we allow this sales tax revision and answer the questions of law framed by the Revenue against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE vns