RAJEIWARA SAITTY Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in these writ petitions is whether copra is exempt from sales tax by virtue of an amended Explanation added by Act 16 of 1963 to the A.P. General Sales-Tax Act on 26-9-1963, on which date, the incidence of tax has been imposed on the last purchaser.

(2.) The word "coconut" in the third schedule is at item 5. Prior to the amendement, the items in the schedule were 7 and 8 which contained ' coconuts" and "copra" as separate items, By an amendment ot the schedule III in 1957 for the word "copra", the words "tender coconuts" were substituted, so that copra went out of the picture and was therefore probably exempt, because at that stage there was no Explanation added to the schedule On 11-9-1961 an Explanation was added to the word "cocoanut" which is as follows:

(3.) In this case, the petitioner in each of the petitions purchased copra from dealers and crushed it into oil and sold the oil. The purchase of copra is taxed on the ground that he is the last purchaser as the same is consumed and is no longer in that shape. The learned Advocate, Sri Balaparameswari Rao, contends that this construction is erroneous, because the Legistature imposed tax on the last purchase on coconuts, which includes copra; to that if the coconut including copra is already taxed, copra separately alter it is shelled cannot again be taxed. Accordingly, he says it is exempt and the tax levied is illegal In support of this argument, he has cited two decisions of the Kerala Hieh Court, in one of which cashewnut which has been defined in similar terms as including the kernal is said to have changed once the cashewnut is shelled and the kernel was held to be no longer cashewnut. (K. A. Karim v. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal #1) In another case Poulose Bros v. State of Kerala, #2 coconut has been defined as including copra, and therefore sales tax levied on copra was held to be not legal. But before I examine these cases, on a reading of the explanation it is apparent that dried coconuts shelled or unshelled including copra come within the definition of coconuts. I asked Mr. Balaparameswari Rao what is the meaning of shelled coconuts and whether 11 is not copra. His answer is that those are only coconuts without the fibre.and that they are not copra. While I am prepared to accept his contention that unshelled coconut is not copra as such, shelled coconut is certainly copra. The mere removing of the fibre does not remove it from the category of coconuts. It is only after the hard casing of the coconut is removed or shelled that what remains is copra. It may also be noticed that these words "shelled" or "unshelled" including copra are used with reference to dry coconuts and where fresh or tender coconuts are concerned, no such words occur. A fresh coconut certainly has no copra, dried coconut only is capable of being crushed into oil A reference to the Chambers English Dictionary for the word "copra" would show that it is the dried kernel of the coconut yielding coconut oil. This definition also is consistent with the definition in the Act, where the Legislature intended to include in the word "copra, dried coconuts, shelled or unshelled" so that shelled or unshelled dried coconuts including copra are. excisable to tax at the last point of purchese. If so, what it the last point ot purchase? In my view, the last point of purchase within a State is the point at which the commodity is consumed. Sri Balaparameswari Rao contends that as soon as coconut is shelled it is consumed, for which proposition he relies on a judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Anwarkhan Mehaboob Co. v State of Bombay #3. I may at once state that that decision was not dealing with the definition of "copra" and as such it can have no application to the facts of the present case. That case deals with levy of sales tax on tobacco which has been utilised in making beedies. Further the matter that fell for determination in that case was as to which State has power to tax having regard to Art. 286 of the Constitution in respect of inter-State sales. The meaning of the word "consumption" which has been used in Art. 286 was considered and in considering that. reference was made to the observations of Das, J., in State of Travancore Cochin v. Shunmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory #4, viz.,