STATE OF ORISSA Vs. DINABANDHU SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent is a dealer carrying on business inter alia in dhania (coriander seed), panmohuri (aniseed or anise), jeera (cumin seed), postak (papaver rhoeas), pippali (long pepper) and methi (fenugreek ). He was assessed to sales tax by the assessing authority for the five quarters ending 31st March, 1959 to 31st March, 1960, on his total taxable turnover at the rate of 5 per cent. On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Puri, held that the goods above-mentioned fall under the definition of "oil-seeds" and as such being goods, declared under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "central Act"), as goods of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce, are by virtue of section 15 of the Central Act read with the fourth proviso to section 5 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "orissa Act"), liable to be assessed to tax at 2 per cent. Aggrieved by this decision of the Assistant Commissioner, the State filed appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal contending that the articles in question are "spices" and not "oil-seeds". The Tribunal rejected the State's contention and, in doing so, relied on the letter No. 4 (8)-ST/57, dated 31st January, 1958, of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, addressed to all State Governments stating that the Ministry has been advised that the items appearing in the list annexed thereto come within the purview of the definition of "oil-seeds" as given in section 14 of the Central Act, and that the list might be circulated amongst the Sales Tax Authorities in the State for their guidance. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals. On being moved by the State in each of the five cases under section 24 of the Orissa Act, the Tribunal referred the following two common questions in each of the five cases for the opinion of this Court :

(2.) IT is necessary to quote here the provisions of law relevant for a determination of the points of reference. Section 14 of the Central Act in so far as is relevant is in the following terms :

(3.) IN support of the respondent's contention, reliance is placed on a decision of the Kerala High Court reported in C. M. Hamsa Haji v. Sales Tax Officer, Tirur ([1967] 20 S. T. C. 470. ). The question for consideration was whether gingelly seed and mustard seed are oil-seeds within the meaning of section 14 of the Central Act. The popular understanding theory was placed before Isaac, J. , and reliance was placed on the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kajjam Ramachandraiah ([1961] 12 S. T. C. 795. ). The learned Judge rejected the contention and expressed his dissent from the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. His Lordship observed that the Legislature has in clear terms stated in the above section [14 (vi) of the Central Act] what oil-seeds are. That being so, no question arises as to in what way, they are understood in common parlance. If a commodity satisfies the definition which the Legislature has given to the word "oil-seeds", it is an oil-seed within the meaning of the said provision. We are in entire agreement with this view. Where the Legislature uses an expression - may be an expression commonly used - and has proceeded to explain what it means, full effect has to be given to the definition and it is not permissible to rest content with what it popularly means. Resort can be had to "popular understanding" theory only in the absence of any definition. We are, therefore, of the view that oil-seeds are those seeds from which oil can be extracted for any of the purposes mentioned in section 14 (vi) of the Central Act.