AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Ramalingam, J.—This case filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal raises the question whether
lucerne grass would fall under the expression of ""vegetable"" and the sales thereof is exempt by virtue of G.O. No. 1764 (Revenue) dated April 5,
1960, as amended. The Appellate Tribunal relying on the literature on the subject and also on Mangulu Sahu Ramahari Sahu Vs. The Sales Tax
Officer, Ganjam, held that the meaning of the word ""vegetable"" in common parlance will partake all those items which are fit for human
consumption and used for the table. It is not in dispute that lucerne is used for human consumption in countries like China and Russia. In spite of its
slightly bitter taste, it can be consumed by human also. Certain items of preparations out of this are recommended for vitamin deficiencies and they
are of high haemoglobin value. Therefore the conclusion of the Tribunal is that lucerne leaves which is a species of greens can rightly be described
as ""vegetable"" for claiming exemption. In State of West Bengal v. Washi Ahmed [1977] 39 STC 378, the Supreme Court quoted with approval
the following passage from the judgment of the Nagpur High Court in Madhya Pradesh Pan Merchants Associatio[1956] 7 STC 99n, Santra
Market, Nagpur v. State of Madhya Pradesh :
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.
Judged by that standard, lucerne leaves certainly would be eligible for exemption as ""vegetable"". The tax cases are, therefore, dismissed. No
costs.
Petitions dismissed.