DY COMMISSIONER Vs. VANIAMPARA RUBBER CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that cotton pods obtained from poola trees, and rubber seeds constitute agricultural produce and therefore exempted from tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 'Turnover' is defined in S.2(xxvii) of the said Act, as the aggregate amount for which goods are either bought or sold, supplied or distributed by a dealer, but with an exclusion that the proceeds of the sale by a person of agricultural or horticultural produce, grown by himself or grown on any land in which he has an interest whether as owner, usufructuary mortgagee, tenant or otherwise, shall be excluded from this turnover. Explanation to the above Section provides that agricultural or horticultural produce shall not include rubber amongst others. The Tribunal held that cotton pods obtained from poola trees and rubber seeds will constitute agricultural produce and will not fall within the exclusion provided by the Explanation.

(2.) We do not find any difficulty in upholding the decision of the Tribunal. Cotton pods and rubber seeds are obtained by virtue of the agricultural operations which are carried on by the assessee in his estate. The produce which arises out of such agricultural operations has necessarily to be treated as agricultural produce unless it is specifically excluded therefrom, as in the case of rubber. Cotton pods constitute the main yield from the poola trees. Rubber seeds could not be equated with rubber, as contended by the learned Additional Advocate General. The seeds obtained from the rubber trees are different commercial commodity from rubber or latex, and the exclusion of rubber from the definition of agricultural produce will not ipso facto take rubber seeds out of the category of agricultural produce. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal calling for interference by this court. The petitions are accordingly dismissed.