P.A. THlLLAl ClilDAllBARA NADAR v. THE ADDL. APPELLATE ASSTI COMMISSIONER, MADURA! & ANR.

grocer, could not be regarded as a"fresh fruit" or a "vegetable" the appellant's sales Assessment Years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-lO was liable to sales tax and includible in his taxable turnover. It is this view of the High Court which has been challenged before us by counsel for the appellant-assessee. turn over in coconuts in each of The canon of construction to be invoked in these types of statutes has been repeatedly enunciated. in several decisions this Court but it is not necessary to refer to all of them. In Iodo international Industries v. Comdssiooer of Sales Tax, Uttar ptadesh [1981] 3 S.C.R.294, this court ruled thus: interpreting "It is well-settled statutes like the Excise Tax Acts or Sales Tax Acts, • whose primary object is to raise revenue and for which purpose they classify diverse products, articles and substances resort should be had not to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms or expressions used but to their popular meaning, meaning attached to them by those dealing in them. If any term or expression has been defined in the enact ment then it must be understood in the sense in which it is defined but in the absence of any definition being given in the enactment the meaning of the term in common parlance or commercial parlance has to be adopted." that is to say, If regard be had to this rule of construction, the question raised will have to be answered against the appellant. On the first aspect of the question it can not ·be disputed that a coconut would be a'fruit' in the botancial sense but unless it 'fresh fruit' it will not fall within the can be said to be a exemption notification. Similarly a coconut may be available in a vegetable market. but because of that it does not become a 'vegetable'. It is well-known that the kernel of the coconut is for adding used as an ingredient in the culinery preparations taste to the food but it is hardly used as a substantial article of food on the table. The concerned articles namely, 'fresh fruits' and 'vegetables' being household articles of everday use for the . table these will have to be construed in their popular sense meaning the sense in which every householder will under stand them. Viewed from this angle, the most apposite test would the one adopted in the case of HtS Majesty the King V• Planters Nut and Chocolate Company Limited [1951] C.L.R. (Ex.) . A B c D E F G H P.A.THILLAI v. THE ADDL. ASSTI. CQMMNR. [MUKHARJI, J. j 343 .122 (which decision was approved by this court in ComoissiODer of Sales Tax v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh) [1967 J 2 s.c.R. no. Would a house holder when asked to bring home soffie 'fresh fruit' coconut? Obviously, the answer is in the negative. the evening meal bring 'vegetable' Counsel for the appellant sought to rely upon the legis- lative history by referring some of the earlier e~emption noti fications issued by the State Government under the earlier Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 which were operative till the Tamil- nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was passed but in our view such reliance is of no avail to the appellant. In the first place all these earlier notifications clearly show that coconut was always subject to sales tax.till G.Q. No. 1764 dated 5.4.1960 was issued under the 1959 Act and there is no material to show that the Government had changed taxation under the earlier notifictions merely 'fruits' had been exempted from levy of sales tax and since coconut would have come within the category of fruits the.same as expressly excluded from the exemption thereby making the sale thereof liable to tax. The legislative history, therefore, is of no assis~ance to the appellant. Similarly', how coconut was dealt with under the amendment Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1970 by which coconut was brought under single point taxation would be immaterial. its view and exempted coconut Secondly, under the 1959 Act. introduced In v1ew of what is stated above we feel that the High Court was right in its conclusion that the appellant's sales turnover in coconut was not exempt from the levy of the sales tax. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. SABYASACIU MIJKllARJI, J, Under G.o •. No 1764 dated 5.4.1960, issued under the Tamilnadu General as amended on 22 .12 .1960, Sales Tax Act, 1959, 'vegetable' are exempt 'fresh fruit' and from the levy of sales tax• Whether ripened coconut with or without husk can be considered to be 'vegetable' is the question in these appeals. I respectfully agree with my learned brother Tulzapurkar J, that principles to be adopted in deciding that question are well -settled i.e. in interpreting items in statutes whose primary object is to raise revenue and for which purpose they classify diverse products, articles and substances, resort should be had not to the terms of the expressions used, but their popular meaning, that is to the scientific and technical meaning of A li' c; D F G H 344 SUPIUlMJ:: COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPl'.2 s.c.R. A IS C D E. say, the meaning attached 'to them by Fresh fruit' or vege.table' has not been defined in the Act. those dealing in them. My learned brothers· have come to the conclusion that it cannot be 'disputed that ripened coconut will ·not be a 'fresh fruit,. in terns of the said notification, I respectfully agree. B.ut my learned brothers have also ripened coconut cannot be considered to be 'vegetable', I am not so sure on this aspect. · Whether ripened coconut can be considered to be a 'vegetable' or 'fruit' in any part of India will depend upon the evidence. available. Tastes vary, habits ·differ and food served, prepared and consumed at the tables in different parts of the country also vary. Therefore, it is safer not to rest our deci sion on·our subjective ideas, if possible. I, however, respect fully agree with the conclusion reached by my learned brothers that the appeala should be dismissed. · It is well-settled that it is for ·the assessee who claims exemption to adduce evidence that a particular article is an exempted item and if he cannot or if he fails to do so, then the revenue may proceed on its basis. In such a situation, assessee should have such an opportunity. We cannot foreclose. such an opportunity. We cannot categorically say that ripened coconut could never be considered to be 'vegetable'. But in this case the assessee has adduced no evidence. In the premises, the assessee must fail and I respectfully agree with the order proposed by my learned brothers. Appeals dismissed.