Skip to content


In Re: State of Madras Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1956)2MLJ238
AppellantIn Re: State of Madras Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Cases ReferredCoimbatore District State of Madras v. Saravana Pillai
Excerpt:
- .....appellate tribunal which held that the arecanut sold by the assessee, all of whom belonged to the south kanara district, was a horticultural produce within the meaning of section 2(i) of the act.2. in our judgment in t.r.c. no. 22 of 1955 state of madras v. saravana pillai (1956) 2 m.l.j. 10, which has just been delivered, we pointed out the difference in the process adopted by the horticulturists of south kanara district and those of coimbatore district in preparing the arecanuts for sale. the process adopted by the horticulturists of south kanara involves much less than that adopted by those of coimbatore district state of madras v. saravana pillai (1956) 2 m.l.j. 10 was concerned with the processing to which the horticulturists of coimbatore subjected the arecanuts. all that is done.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Rajagopalan, J.

1. These are petitions presented by the State under Section 12-B of the Madras General Sales-tax Act against the decision of the appellate tribunal which held that the arecanut sold by the assessee, all of whom belonged to the South Kanara District, was a horticultural produce within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act.

2. In our judgment in T.R.C. No. 22 of 1955 State of Madras v. Saravana Pillai (1956) 2 M.L.J. 10, which has just been delivered, we pointed out the difference in the process adopted by the horticulturists of South Kanara District and those of Coimbatore District in preparing the arecanuts for sale. The process adopted by the horticulturists of South Kanara involves much less than that adopted by those of Coimbatore District State of Madras v. Saravana Pillai (1956) 2 M.L.J. 10 was concerned with the processing to which the horticulturists of Coimbatore subjected the arecanuts. All that is done in South Kanara is to gather the arecanut, peel and dry the kernel before it is sold. That cannot result in what is sold ceasing to be horticultural produce within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act. These petitions are dismissed.


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