POULOSE BROTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Tax Revision Case various points were originally raised. None of them are pressed before us. The only point urged is regarding the taxability of copra as such and this on the basis of a memo filed before us to-day. The point raised being a pure question of law we allowed the additional point raised being argued.

(2.) Item 41 to the schedule to the notification, dated 1st April 1958 published in the Kerala Gazette, Ext. No. 53, dated Ist April 1958 reads thus: coconut including copra, and item 44 is in these terms: Cashewnut including its kernel. We had recently to consider the question whether the kernel of the cashewnut after shelling was taxable. We held that cashewnut including kernel the item which was made taxable at the last purchase point, meant the whole or unshelled nut. The decision is reported in Karim v. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal ( 1962 KLT 725 ). We think the reasoning in that case will apply to the question that arises for decision here.

(3.) Certain changes were effected to the Schedule to the Sales Tax Act by the General Sales tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1958. In column 2 of item 35 for the word cocount the words coconut including copra were substituted and in item 37 for the words cashew and its kernels the words cashewnut including its kernel were substituted. In the objects and reasons it is stated in Para.2: