THE TATA OIL MILLS CO. LTD. Vs. DIRECTOR, MARKETING, BIHAR STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, PATNA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing an order dated 18.5.1984 passed by the Director, Marketing, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Board') holding that the refined coconut oil is a vegetable oil, and, as such, an agricultural produce within the meaning of Sec. 2(1) (a) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). It is the case of the petitioner that it manufactures crystal clear refined coconut oil for use as a hair oil which is sold in different markets of Bihar. It has been stated that since the year 1975 the petitioner bad been receiving notice from the authorities of the respondent -Board directing the petitioner to get itself registered as a trader in accordance with the provisions of the Act in respect of coconut oil. The petitioner has resisted the said claim by saying that coconut oil was not an agricultural produce within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(a). According to the petitioner, unless coconut oil is held to be a vegetable oil it is not covered by any of the items mentioned in the Schedule of the Act. It was submitted that coconut cannot be held to be a vegetable so that its oil can be included under the item "vegetable oil". In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the definition of 'agricultural produce' as it stood before the amendment introduced by Act 60 of 1982. Sec. 2(1)(a) was as follows :

(2.) Before 1 express my opinion as to whether coconut oil can be held to be an agricultural produce within the meaning of the expression as originally defined, I may point out that the definition of 'agricultural produce' has been substituted by Act 60 of 1982, which came in force on 30.4.1982 and is as follows: - -

(3.) What was the position prior to the amendment aforesaid is a matter of some controversy. On behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed on a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tiruchivapalli v/s. Hameed Trading Company [32(1973) Sales Tax Cases 228] where a question had arisen as to whether coconut is a fresh fruit or vegetable for purpose of exemption under the relevant Sales Tax Act. It was held that as coconut was not a perishable article it cannot be treated as a fresh fruit. It was also pointed out that it was also not a vegetable within the meaning of the words of the notification giving exemption. However, a Full Bench of Madras High Court in the case of S.M. Narayana v/s. S.P.R.M. Snbramanian Chettiar (AIR 1937 Mad 254) in context of Estates Lands Act held that Coconuts are fruits and coconut trees are fruit trees and coconut plantation is fruit garden. Even in the aforesaid case of Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v/s. Hameed Trading Company [32(973) Sales Tax Cases 228] it was pointed out that Oxford Illustrated Dictionary (1962) defines 'fruits' as "(1) vegetable products fit for food, (ii) Edible products of plant or tree, consisting of seed or its envelope, specially when this is juicy or pulpy; ripe seeds and structure surrounding them." In the book 'Coconut Palm' by K.P.B. Menon and K.M. Pandala, coconut is generally referred to as a 'fruit.' In the Webster's Dictionary 'coconut' has been shown as "(a) fruit of the coconut palm consisting of a thick fibrous brown ovate husk under which there is thick hard shell enclosing the layer of edible white mesh". According to Lexicon Webster's Dictionary, vol. II (printed in 1983), page 1097, 'vegetable oil' means "an oil derived from fruit or plant seeds, having various uses in medicine, cooking, and as a lubricant". Even in Chamber's Encyclopaedia, Vol. III 'coconut' has been described as a fruit.