- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jagabandhu Sahu v. State Of Orissa
Factual and Procedural Background
The Sales Tax Tribunal referred a question to the High Court under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, seeking the Court's opinion on whether ginger qualifies as a "vegetable" according to the test established by the Supreme Court. This classification is significant because "vegetables" are exempt from taxation under the Act. The Tribunal had previously held that ginger is not a vegetable, relying on a Division Bench decision from Orissa (Dhadi Sahu v. Commissioner of Sales Tax). The petitioner challenged this view, prompting the referral for the High Court's authoritative determination.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether ginger is a "vegetable" within the meaning of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, considering the test finally settled by the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Government Advocate's Arguments
- Relied on the Division Bench decision in Dhadi Sahu v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, which held that vegetables must be primarily used as food.
- Argued that ginger is not primarily served as food in Orissa but is used only to add taste or flavor, thus not qualifying as a vegetable.
Petitioner's Arguments
- Contended that the Division Bench decision is contrary to the Supreme Court’s view and should no longer be considered good law.
- Asserted that the Supreme Court’s test does not require the vegetable to be used primarily as food but rather that it be grown in a kitchen garden and used for the table in common parlance.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Dhadi Sahu v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa (I.L.R 1961 Cuttack 175) | Test that vegetables must be primarily used as food and grown in kitchen gardens. | The Tribunal relied on this test to hold ginger not a vegetable; the Court found this test flawed in light of Supreme Court authority. |
| Ramavatar v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola (A.I.R 1961 S.C 1325) | The word "vegetables" in taxing statutes means those grown in kitchen gardens or farms and used for the table in common parlance. | Applied as the authoritative Supreme Court test, rejecting the primary use requirement and supporting ginger’s classification as vegetable. |
| Motipur Zamindari Co. v. State of Bihar (A.I.R 1962 S.C 660) | Applied the Ramavatar test; sugarcane held not a vegetable as it is not used for the table despite being grown in kitchen gardens or farms. | Supported the principle that use for the table, not primary or subsidiary use, determines vegetable status; reinforced the rejection of the Division Bench test. |
| Krishna Iyer v. State Of Kerala (13 S.T.C 838) | Recognized ginger as vegetable under local common parlance. | Supported the Court’s conclusion that ginger is a vegetable in Orissa. |
| Wazi Ahmed v. State of West Bengal (Calcutta) (20 S.T.C 255) | Also recognized ginger as vegetable. | Further precedent confirming the classification of ginger as vegetable. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the Division Bench’s test from Dhadi Sahu, which required vegetables to be primarily used as food, and found it inconsistent with Supreme Court precedents. The Court noted that the Division Bench misinterpreted a passage from Corpus Juris Secundum, which actually described vegetables as items served at dinner alongside principal foods but did not require primary use as food. Supreme Court decisions in Ramavatar and Motipur Zamindari clarified that the proper test is whether the item is grown in kitchen gardens or farms and used for the table in common parlance, without restricting the use to primary consumption. Applying this test, the Court concluded that ginger, though used primarily to add flavor rather than as a main food item, qualifies as a vegetable since it is grown in kitchen gardens and used at the table. The Court also acknowledged that the classification of vegetables can vary by region, but under the accepted Supreme Court test, ginger is a vegetable in Orissa. Consequently, the Court found the Tribunal’s contrary conclusion to be erroneous.
Holding and Implications
The Court held that ginger is a vegetable within the meaning of the Orissa Sales Tax Act.
As a result, ginger is exempt from sales tax under the Act. The Court directed that the petitioner is entitled to a refund of monies deposited under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. Each party was directed to bear its own costs. No new precedent was established beyond affirming the Supreme Court’s existing test for vegetable classification and applying it to the facts of this case.
G.K Misra, C.J:— The Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following question under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act for the opinion of the High Court:
“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, ginger is not a vegetable according to the test as finally settled by the Supreme Court”.
“Vegetables” are not taxable under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. If ginger is vegetable, it is not taxable. This is how the question gathers importance.
2. The Tribunal has found that ginger is not vegetable. Its view is based on Dhadi Sahu v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa . I.L.R 1961 Cuttack 175..In paragraph 8 their Lordships laid down the following test:
“On the basis of those decisions one can safely find that ‘vegetables’ would cover only such plants which are grown in the kitchen garden and cultivated for the purpose of food. In other words vegetables shall include such plants, roots, etc. are primarily used for the purpose of food. The description of the word ‘vegetable’ as appears from the authorities stated above, only means that if a particular plant or vegetable is used for the primary purpose of being served as a food, then it will be treated as a vegetable. As is well known, while giving a meaning to the word ‘vegetable’ we have to look to the meaning of the law as is intended by the Legislature, the people for whom it is intended, and the area or place for which it is intended to apply. The test therefore would be whether green pepper are treated as a principal item of food in Orissa as vegetables like brinjals, tomatoes, potatoes etc., or it is applied to other vegetable or non-vegetable preparations for the purpose of adding taste or flavour”.
3. Mr. Government Advocate also relies on this Division Pench decision. If the aforesaid passage represents the correct law, the conclusion of the Tribunal is unassailable. Ginger is never used in Orissa for the primary purpose of being served as food. It is definitely used in this part of the country for the purpose of adding taste or flavour to the main item of food whether vegetarian or non vegetarian.
4. It is to be noticed that this is the only decision in India which lays down the test that, in order to come within the meaning of ‘vegetable’ the particular vegetable must be used for the primary purpose of food. Mr. Bhattacharya contends that the aforesaid decision is directly contrary to the view expressed by the Supreme Court and can no longer be held to be good law. The view of the Division Bench was based on a passage appearing in Corpus Juris Secundum 91 C.J.S 804 which is as follows:—
“It has been held that in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with or after the soup, fish or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert”.
5. The meaning given to this passage by the Division Bench is quite different from the meaning it conveys. In the passage the principal items consist of soup, fish or meats. Other items like potatoes, carrots etc. are served at the dinner as subsidiary items. Though so served as subsidiary items still they were construed as vegetables. Unfortunately, the Division Bench by mistake was of the impression that in order to be vegetables they must be used for the primary purpose of being served as food. The passage quoted above does not support the conclusion of the Division Bench. We are aware of the position that a subsequent Division Bench cannot over-rule an earlier Bench decision by pointing out certain palpable errors.
6. If this were the only ground on which we were to take a different view, the question would have been referred to a larger Bench, but the necessity for referring to a larger Bench does not arise on account of the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court laying down the meaning of the expression ‘vegetable’. It is to be remembered that in a wide sense all things belonging to the vegetable world are vegetables, but in the taxing statutes they have been construed to be used in a restricted sense. In Ramavatar v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer. Akola . A.I.R 1961 S.C 1325., the question for consideration was whether betel-leaves were vegetables. After reviewing the entire law on the question their Lordships laid down the following test:
“The word ‘vegetables’ in taxing statutes is to be understood as in common parlance, i.e, denoting class of vegetables which are grown in a kitchen garden or in a farm and are used for the table.”
7. This decision was followed in Motipur Zamindari Co. v. State of Bihar . A.I.R 1962 S.C 660., and applying that test sugarcane was held not to be a vegetable. Though sugarcane and betel-leaves might be grown either in a kitchen garden or in a farm they are not used for the table. It is to be noticed that the test laid down by the Supreme Court does not refer to the use of the vegetable as primary or subsidiary for the purpose of food. Take for instance Podina (mint) or Dhania (coriander). They are used for the purpose of preparation of chutney but are not used for the primary purpose of food and are used to give flavour or taste to the food. In common parlance in Orissa they are vegetables, are grown in the kitchen garden and are used for the table. Judged by the Supreme Court decisions indicated above, the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court is no longer good law. As there is direct authority of the Supreme Court on the point which is the law for the country, there is no necessity to refer the question to a larger Bench. The Orissa decision however remains good law so far as the second test is concerned. namely whether in common parlance a particular vegetable would be vegetable or not would depend on the particular area or locality. What may be a vegetable in Kerala may not be a vegetable in Orissa on the application of the aforesaid restricted definition of the expression ‘vegetable’.
8. On the aforesaid analysis ginger is a vegetable. Doubtless it is not used for the primary purpose of food, but used to give flavour or taste to the food; but it is grown in the kitchen garden and is used for the table.
9. The same view has been taken in Krishna Iyer v. State Of Kerala . 13 S.T.C 838., and Wazi Ahmed v. State of West Bengal (Calcutta) . 20 S.T.C 255., and no contrary view has been brought to our notice.
10. In the result we hold that the Tribunal took a wrong view. We would answer the question by saying that ginger is a vegetable. In the circumstances parties to bear their own costs. The petitioner is however entitled to refund of the money deposited under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act.
Patra, J.:— I agree.
11. Answered accordingly.
Alert