JUDGMENT
L. Palamalai, Administrative Member
1. The point for consideration in all these tax revision cases is whether mochai and horsegram fall under the entry “pulses” in the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Madurai Bench) in these cases held that mochai and horsegram would fall under the botanical family “leguminosae”. This decision was arrived at on the basis of dictionary meaning discussed by the Tribunal in the orders. In that view the Tribunal held that mochai and horsegram would be covered by entry 6A of the Second Schedule to the Act which relates to pulses of various kinds noted therein.
2. Mr. R. Mahadevan, the learned Government Advocate, in all these revisions urged that according to the expert opinion of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, the mochai would not fall under the item “masur or lentil”. Similarly, horsegram also would not be covered by the entry 6A of the Second Schedule to the Act.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that the view taken by the Tribunal is quite in order having regard to the botanical family name mentioned in the order of the Tribunal.
4. We have considered the contentions carefully. In the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 entry 6-A reads as follows :
6A. Pulses, that is to say,–
(i) gram or gulab gram (Cicerietinum L);
(ii) tur or arhar (Cajanus cajan);
(iii) moong or green gram (Phaseolus aureus);
(iv) masur or lentil (Lens esculenta moench, lens culinaris madic);
(v) urad or black gram (Phaseolus mungo);
(vi) moth (Phaseolus acolitifolius facq);
(vii) lakh or khesari (Lathyrus sativus L).
5. Against each kind of pulses, the relevant botanical name also has been furnished. However, we find that the botanical name related to mochai is “Phaseolus limensis-Papilionaceae”. Similarly, in respect of horse gram, the botanical name given is “Dolichos Biflorus Papilionaceae”. In “Guide to the Economic Plants of South India” by Dr. D. Daniel Sundararaj and Girija Balasubramanyam, in regard to horsegram, the botanical name given is “Dolichos lab-lab” (Papilionaceae). From the above botanical names given in the Literature, we find that no botanical name furnished against any of the pulses in entry 6-A of the Second Schedule to the Act equals the name given in respect of mochai or horsegram. Thus, the view of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in concluding that these goods namely mochai and horsegram would fall under declared goods covered by the Second Schedule to the Act is erroneous and therefore we hold that horsegram and mochai would not be covered by entry 6-A of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
6. Accordingly the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in M.T.A. Nos. 346 of 1991 to 348 of 1991 and 508 of 1992 are set aside and the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner are restored thereby allowing the revision petitions filed by the Revenue.
And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned.
Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 3rd day of September, 1999.
