JUDGMENT
Hari Lal Agrawal and Nazir Ahmad, JJ.
1. A reference has been made by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna, under Section 33(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959, for answering the following question of law:
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that copra (gari gola) is ‘oil-seed’ within the meaning of the expression as used in Clause (vi) of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and sales thereof are taxable at the rate of 3 per cent under Section 6(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with Section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ?
2. This reference has been made in view of the conflicting decisions of the various High Courts in the country as to whether dry coconut which is commonly known as “gari gola” is an oil-seed within the meaning of the expression used in Clause (vi) of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
3. From the statement of case the relevant facts which appear are briefly as follows. M/s. Ekbal Ram Laxman Prasad is a registered dealer carrying on business in the town of Arrah. For the financial year 1967-68 it submitted a gross turnover for Rs. 20,27,978.82.
The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Shahabad Circle, by his order dated 4th February, 1970, accepted the gross turnover as returned as well as the various claims for deductions except to the extent of Rs. 6,984, disallowing the claim of the dealer that transactions in copra were taxable only at 3 per cent and not at 5 per cent. The dealer preferred an appeal claiming that copra being an “oil-seed” under the provisions to be mentioned hereinafter, could be taxed only at 3 per cent. The dealer’s plea was accepted by the appellate authority which held that copra was oil-seed within the meaning of the expression used in Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and thus it was exigible only at 3 per cent.
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes moved the Tribunal in revision on this question of law, but the Tribunal maintained the view of the appellate authority and then the department filed an application for reference to this Court and accordingly a reference has been made.
5. It would appear from the judgment of the Tribunal as well as the statement of case made by the Tribunal that this question had fallen for decision in different High Courts. Whereas in the cases of (1) Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore v. Bakhat Rai and Co. [1966] 18 STC 285 (MP), (2) City Oil Mill v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Royapuram Division, Madras-1 [1970] 25 STC 33 (Mad.), (3) Hans Raj Choudhri v. J.S. Rajyana, Excise and Taxation Officer {Enforcement) [1967] 19 STC 489 (P & H) and (4) S. Kannappa Mudaliar v. State of Madras [1968] 21 STC 41 (Mad.), some High Courts have taken the view that copra was not an oil-seed in the cases of (1) Kasturi Seshagiri Pai & Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of South Kanara [1961] 12 STC 629 (Mys), (2) K.T. Kumaran & Co. v. Secretary, Malabar Market Committee [1964] 15 STC 634 (Ker) and (3) Sales Tax Officer, Kozhikode v. K.V. Moosa Koya [1966] 18 STC 464 (Ker) the High Courts have taken a contrary view and have held that copra was an oil-seed within the meaning of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and, therefore, liable to lesser rate of sales tax.
6. Before we proceed to discuss the matter further, we may state the legislative amendment of Section 14 by Act 61 of 1972. Prior to the amendment by the Central Act Section 14 was very small and Clause (vi) thereof dealing with oil-seeds read as follows :
(vi) oil-seeds, that is to say, seeds yielding non-volatile oils used for human consumption, or in industry, or in the manufacture of varnishes, soaps and the like, or in lubrication, and volatile oils used chiefly in medicines, perfumes, cosmetics and the like.
By the amending Act of 1972 it was made very comprehensive and more exhaustive. In Clause (viii) of the amending provision of Section 14, coconut, t. e., copra (excluding tender coconuts), was categorically included to remove all doubts. It may be mentioned that prior to this, certain State amendments had included watery coconuts within the definition of “oil-seed” and some of the decisions which are in favour of the revenue are based on that, one of them being noticed in Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Coconut & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1974] 34 STC 103 (SC).
7. It is no doubt true that in the last decision, which is of the Supreme Court, there is observation that the amendments must be prospective, which proposition cannot be disputed but on referring to some of the rules of interpretation it would appear that if the earlier Act is ambiguous the later Act may throw light on it and where a particular construction of the earlier Act will render the later incorporated Act ineffectual, it lies within the authority of the legislature to amend an earlier Act or to declare its meaning by enacting a new Act.
8. Reading the earlier definition before the amendment, extracted hereinbefore, we are inclined to take a view that “copra”, i.e., dry coconut, was an oil-seed and thus being covered within the purview of that definition, it was assessable to sales tax at 3 per cent only. We need not venture upon to give our reasons as we adopt the reasons given in the three decisions of the different High Courts and, to shorten the matter, will simply content ourselves by falling in line with the reasons given by the learned Judges in those cases.
9. The result of the above discussions is that the answer to be given is that “copra” is an oil-seed within the meaning of Section 14(vi) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and, therefore, taxable at 3 per cent only under Section 6(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959. In short, the answer is against the revenue and in favour of the dealer. Since the dealer has not turned up to contest the matter, there shall be no order as to costs.