Skip to content


G.P.V.A. Subrahmanyam Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case Number T.R.C. No. 47 of 1963
Judge
Reported in[1967]20STC285(AP)
AppellantG.P.V.A. Subrahmanyam
RespondentThe State of Andhra Pradesh
Appellant Advocate P. Rama Rao, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Third Government Pleader
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....4 & 3: [v.v.s. rao, n.v. ramana & p.s. narayana, jj] meaning when there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded. - 546. if arecanut could fall within the definition of horticultural produce, we fail to see why cocoanut does not answer that description......of horticultural produce for the reason that they are grown extensively and secondly that cocoanut cultivation also requires tilling and watering as in the case of agricultural operations.3. we do not think there is any substance in this argument. whether a particular produce is a horticultural produce or not does not depend upon the extent of its cultivation. if this argument is to be accepted, if a person has raised only ten cocoanut trees, the produce of these trees will be regarded as horticultural produce ; but if the same person raised thousands of trees it ceases to be horticultural and becomes agricultural produce. we do not think that the character of the produce is altered by the extent of its cultivation. there is, therefore, no force in this contention.4. the other.....
Judgment:

P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.

1. The only question that arises in this revision case is whether cocoanut is a horticultural produce or not, for purposes of Rule 5(2)(f) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Rules.

2. It is argued by Shri Rama Rao that cocoanuts in this case do not fall within the definition of horticultural produce for the reason that they are grown extensively and secondly that cocoanut cultivation also requires tilling and watering as in the case of agricultural operations.

3. We do not think there is any substance in this argument. Whether a particular produce is a horticultural produce or not does not depend upon the extent of its cultivation. If this argument is to be accepted, if a person has raised only ten cocoanut trees, the produce of these trees will be regarded as horticultural produce ; but if the same person raised thousands of trees it ceases to be horticultural and becomes agricultural produce. We do not think that the character of the produce is altered by the extent of its cultivation. There is, therefore, no force in this contention.

4. The other contention is equally untenable. By the mere circumstance that some tilling has to be done for purposes of raising the crop or that watering has to be done, it does not cease to be horticulture. Horticulture means the art of gardening. Admittedly, cocoanuts are raised in gardens. Gardening requires some amount of tilling. Needless to say that every plant, whether agricultural or horticultural, needs water. This does not make' any difference for the consideration of the question whether a particular cultivation comes within the category of horticulture or agriculture. In our opinion, cocoanuts answer the definition of horticultural produce.

5. In Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income- tax and Sales Tax v. A. P. Raman [1960] 11 S.T.C. 263, the High Court of Kerala proceeded on the assumption that cocoanuts are horticultural produce. It is on that footing the further question was considered whether its fibre constituted horticultural produce or not.

6. The Madras High Court in The State of Madras v. R. Saravana Pillai [1956] 7 S.T.C. 541, ruled that arecanut was horticultural produce. The same principle is contained in the case of The State of Madras, Re [1956] 7 S.T.C. 546. If arecanut could fall within the definition of horticultural produce, we fail to see why cocoanut does not answer that description.

7. We, therefore, hold that the tax was rightly levied at the sale point.

8. In the circumstances, the tax revision case is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //