BHARUCH COCONUT tRADING CO. AND ORS. v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD AND OTHERS.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E K. RAMASWAMY, J. This appeal under Art. 136 is against the judgment in S.C.A. No. 655 of 1975 of the Gujarat High Court dated January 24, 1977 wherein the appellants questioned the power to levy octroi on brown coconut (watery coconut) and the High Court dismis- sed the writ petition holding that the brown coconut is not an exemp- ted green fruit but would attract general item No. 55 of Rule 14 of the F Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Octroi Rules (for short 'the Rules'),. The admitted facts are that the appellants import and sell the brown coconut in the city of Ahmedabad as their trading activity. The respondent levied octroi on brown coconurs at the rate of Re:i per-100 kilograms at the point of import into the octroi limits of the respondent corporation. By an amendment to the rules, with effect from April 6, G 1975 the rate of levy was increased to Rs.5 per 100 kilograms. The appellants challenged its legality contending that the brown coconuts are green fruits within the meaning of item 10 of rule 4 of the rules and, therefore, they are exempted articles. It is, thereby, not exigible to octroi. The contention was negated and the writ petition was dismissed as against which this appeal has been filed. H

p. 394

Admittedly the appellants, as a part of their trading activity. A import brown coconuts (watery coconuts) from Andhra Pradesh Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu through rail and road to Ahmedabad. Under the 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 ~xempted B under Item JO of Rule 4. Rule 4 contains the list of articles which are exempted from octroi.

Item JO in Rule 4 reads thus:

"(JO) Green fruits of all kinds, sugar cane, fennel igreen Variali), Pan and Vegetables". c Rule 14 provides that octroi shall be levied at the rates and in the manner stated in schedule 'A'. Item 11 of the sche.dule specify dry fruits thus:

D "l l Dried fruits and their cakes, dry shingodas, dry cashew nuts and dried grapes. 1-00 ps. Adv!.

l3(b ). Dried Kernel of coconut. 0-75 pc-Adv I.

55. All articles and goods not specified elsewhere in the E schedule or in the list of exempted articles and goods 1-00 JOOkg."

COCONUT TRADING CO. v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. [K. RAMASWAMY, J .1 395

the watery juice therein after cutting it. A watery coconut is a ripened coconut and enters the market after the removal of the outer cover of its fibre. It is called coconut or watery coconut. For the purpose of the case it is called brown coconut. The water is used as a drink and the kernel for culinary purposes. After the coconut is fully grown it is plucked from the trees and after removing the outer fibre (to reduce weight); it is sent to the market for commercial purposes. As stated earlier it is called coconut or watery coconut (brown coconut). The question, therefore, is whether the brown coconut (watery coconut) is a green fruit. The word green is defined in Chambers Dictionary at page 463 as adjective of the colour usually in leaves between blue and yellow in spectrum ..... unripe, fresh, undried, raw or colour of green things. c In Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edition at p. 509, the word 'fruit' has been defined as the edible, pulpy mass covering the seeds of various plants and trees. They are classified as fleshy, as gourds, melons, oranges, apples, pears, berries, etc.; drupaceous as cherries, peaches, plums, apricots, and others contain- D ing stones; dry as nuts, capsuls, ashenia, follicles, legumes, etc. In flowering plants, the mature seed vessel and its contents, together with such accessory or external parts of the inflorescence seemed to be integral with them. Any vegetable product used as food or otherwise serviceable to man, as grain, cotton, or flax; also such products, collec- tively: the fruits of the earth. Therefore, in the context of the octroi it could be legitimate to conclude that all kinds of fresh fruits are exemp- ted articles.

In P.S. Thillai Chidambara Nadar v. Addi. Appellate Asstt. Commissioner, Madurai & Anr., I 1985] 60 STC 80 this Court was to consider whether ripend coconut which is none other than watery coconut is an exempted article as vegetable und.er the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (I of 1959). This Court held that fresh fruits and vegetables being household articles of everyday use for the table, these will have to be construed in the popular sense, meaning the sense in which every householder will understand them. Viewed from this angle, the most apposite test would be an answer to a simple question: G Would a householder when asked to bring home some 'fresh fruits' and some ·vegetables' for the evening meal, bring coccnut too? Ob- viously the answer is in the negative. Accordingly this Court held that ripend coconut is neither a fresh fruit nor vegetable. The watery coconut is no doubt a ripend coconut used for several purposes like offerings to a deity in a Hindu temple being broken or used on auspi- H

p. 395 — page break not located

p. 396

COCONUT TRADING CO. v. MUNICJPALCORPN. [K. RAMASWAMY.J.J 397 • In Sri Lakshmi Coconut Industries v. The State of karnataka & Anr., [ 1980] 46 STC 404 the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court A was to consider whether desiccated coconut falls within the entry coconut, which is one of the declared goods under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and is also included at entry 5 of the Fourth Sche.dule to the Karnataka Sales T_ax Act, 1957. Jn that context the meaning of the word oil-seeds was extensively examined by the B Division Bench and held that desiccated coconut is a coconut and a declared good under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, In Deputy Commissioner of Agrl. Income-tax and Sales-tax, Kerala v. A. P. Raman, [ 1960] 11 STC 263 the Kerala High Court also took the same view. In Commissioner of Sales-tax v. Ram Kumar Nand Kumar, [1973] 31STC321 the Allahabad High Court also held that coconut is an oil-seed within the definition of section 3-AA(l} (vi) of the U.P. c Sales Tax Act, 1948. In the light of the above discussion we conclude that 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- D fore, the watery coconut (brown coconut) does not fall within the meaning of item 13B of Rule 4 of the Rules also. All artiles or goods which are not specified else-where 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 4, namely, green fruit (brown coconut (watery coconut) would E fall within item 55 of Rule 14 of the rules and is exigible to octroi. Shri Krishan kumar, learned c_ounsel for the appellant repeatedly asked this Court to make a reference to the larger bench on the ground that the similar question would frequently arise in various High Courts under the respective sales-tax Acts, the Central Sales-tax Act and the F Octroi Rules of the respective States and after the issue of the notice to all the learned Advocate Generals of the States and the Attorney General and the law may be authoritatively laid by a larger bench. In view of the settled legal position, ~e find no such necessity to make a reference to the larger bench. Thereby we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court is well G justified in coming to its conclusion that watery coconut (brown coconut) is exigible to octroi only under item 55 of Rule 14 of the Rules. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal with costs quantified at Rs.10,000.

T. Lal Appeal dismissed.