RAMAVATAR BUDHAIPRASAD V. ASSTT. S.T.O.
(1962) 1 SCR 279: AIR 1961 SC 1325
FACTS
The Petitioners in the three petitions were dealers in betel leaves at Akola, now in the State of Maharashtra The Assistant Sales Tax Officer at Akola assessed the Petitioners under the provisions of the C.P. & Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 , to the payment of sales tax. In all the petitions, the Petitioners claimed that the order demanding tax was without authority of law as betel leaves were not taxable under Section 6 read with the second Schedule of the Act. The imposition of the tax, was an infringement of the Petitioners’ right to carry on trade or business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and the prayer was for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Assistant Sales Tax Officer and for prohibition.
ISSUE
The issue raised by the Petitioners in all the three petitions under Article 32 was that they were challenging the imposition of sales tax on betel leaves by the Sales Tax Officer, Akola.
RULE
The Section referred is Section 6 of the C.P. & Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 claims that
- “No tax shall be payable under this Act on the sale of goods specified in the second column of Schedule II, subject to the conditions and exceptions, if any, set out in the corresponding entry in the third column thereof.
- The State Government may, after giving by notification not less than one month’s notice of their intention so to do, by a notification after the expiry of the period of notice mentioned in the first notification amend either Schedule, and thereupon such Schedule shall be deemed to be amended accordingly.”
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
- This Hon'ble court observed that all the articles mentioned under the act were exempt from the Sales Tax except the articles mentioned under Item 6 ( Vegetables - Except when sold in sealed containers) and Item 36 (Betal leaves).
- The court observed that after the schedule was amended by the C.P. & Berar Sales Tax Amendment Act, Item 36 was omitted. The intention of the legislature in regard to what is vegetables was shown by it specifying vegetables and betel leaves as separate items in the Schedule exempting articles from Sales Tax. Subsequently, betel leaves were removed from the Schedule which was indicative of the legislature’s intention of not exempting betel leaves from the imposition of the tax.
- But the Appellant contended that no such tax be levied on the beta leaves as they were vegetable leaves upon which no tax could be levied according to the act. The Appellant relied on the dictionary meaning of ‘vegetables’ which states that a vegetable pertaining to, consisting or consisting of, or derived, or obtained from plants or their parts. But the court rejected the contention of the Appellant and held that the beta leaves cannot be given the dictionary, technical or botanical meaning when its ordinary meaning is clear and unambiguous. It stated that being a word of everyday use, it should have been understood with its popular sense, with which people are most conversant with.
- It referenced its observation by agreeing with the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Madhya Pradesh Pan Merchants’ Association, Santra Market, Nagpur v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Sales Tax Department) observed that “the word ‘vegetables’ cannot be given the comprehensive meaning the term bears in natural history and has not been given that meaning in taxing statutes before. The term ‘vegetables’ is to be understood as commonly understood denoting those ‘classes of vegetable matter which are grown in kitchen gardens and are used for the table.”
- This Hon'ble court applied the rule of strict interpretation with reference to the tax statute and since the word could have more than one meaning, the meaning favoured to the subject was favoured. Hence, in the current scenario, the everyday use meaning was used as it was favourable to our case.
- To conclude, after analysing the intention of the statute with respect to item 36 (beta leaves) and the reliance of the meaning of the term vegetables, this Hon'ble court held that beta leaves were not exempted from the sales tax.
RELEVANT THEORY
The rule of literal construction is considered to be the first principle of interpretation. According to this rule, the words of an enactment are to be given their ordinary and natural meaning if it is clear and unambiguous. Where wordings of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, the rule of literal construction is applied and recourse to other principles of interpretation is not required. Unless the law is logically defective and suffers from conceptual and inherent ambiguity, it should be given its literal meaning. The words of a statute are first understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases and sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity or they suggest a contrary meaning. Where the meaning of a word or expression is not clear, the literal rule of interpretation is not applicable. Ordinarily, court should not depart from literal rule as that would really be amending the law in the garb of interpretation, which is not permissible.Only when literal construction results in some absurdity or anomaly, other principles of interpretation may be applied.