KALI KUMAR SHARMA Vs. SALES TAX TRIBUNAL TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved in this civil rule is whether betel-nut is assessable to tax under the provisions of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (hereinafter "the Act" ). The authorities have sought to levy the tax on the sale of betel-nut because of item No. 54 in the Schedule to the Act. This item reads as below :

(2.) IT is an accepted rule of interpretation that in a matter like the one at hand it is the common sense view or the popular sense which has to be followed while deciding whether a commodity is taxable under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act. The botanical or technical meaning is not to prevail in this regard. It is the meaning understood in common parlance which is decisive in this context. The dictionary meaning is relegated to a subsidiary position while answering the question of the present nature. This is the view expressed in Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer [1961] 12 STC 286 (SC), wherein betel leaves were not regarded as "vegetable". It was stated in this connection that the word used in the taxing statute which is of everyday use must be construed in its popular sense, meaning that sense which people conversant with the subject-matter would attribute to it. The importance of common sense view was also emphasised in Alladi Venkateswarlu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [1978] 41 STC 394 (SC) and Assam Cotton Mills v. Commissioner of Taxes [1990] 76 STC 6 (Gauhati); 1988 (2) GLR 398. In Thillai Chidambara Nadar v. Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner [1985] 60 STC 80 (SC), it was stated that the meaning which has to prevail in this context is the one which a householder would like to ascribe. It was stated that understanding of the word in botanical sense cannot be decisive. The botanical understanding had also been rejected in Ramavatar case [1961] 12 STC 286 (SC ).

(3.) IN Ganesh Trading Co. v. State of Haryana [1973] 32 STC 623 (SC), it was stated as below in this connection :