Case Note on :

RAMAVTAR BUDHAIPRASAD ETC v. ASSISTANT SALES TAX OFFICER

(Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India , Petitions 4,36 and 37 of 1958)

Decided on : March 14 , 1961.

Judges : S.K. DAS , J.L. KAPUR , M. HIDYATULLAH & J.C. SHAH

Submitted to : Submitted by :

Nimesh Das Guru Anmol Deepak

Faculty Semester 7th / B / 315

NUSRL , Ranchi

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW , RANCHI

1|Page
 Concepts discussed : Backdrop

The case discusses and provides an informative insight into the “literal or plain rule of interpretation”
which is one of the oldest rules of interpretation adopted by the judiciary . It implies construing words
or phrases in a statute to connote a meaning as is conceived in common parlance.1

FACTS LEADING TO THE DICOURSE

 The petitioners who were dealers in betel leaves at Akola , Madhya Pradesh were assessed to
sales tax by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer under the provisions of the C. P. and Berar Sales
Tax Act2, 1947.
 There were two items in the Schedule, namely, item 6, "vegetables", and item 36, "betel
leaves", but subsequently item No. 36 was omitted by an amendment (C. P. & Berar Sales
Tax Amendment Act (Act XVI of 1948) ) of the Act.
 The imposition of the tax, it is alleged is an infringement of the petitioners' right to carry on
trade or business guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and the prayer is for the
issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Assistant Sales Tax Officer and for
prohibition.
 Hence , the instant petition .
QUESTION OF LAW

Whether betel leaves should be construed to belong to the category of vegetables and how the term
vegetable should be interpreted with regard to the taxation statute ?

CONTENTIONS PRESENTED

S.6(1) "No tax shall be payable under this Act on the Sale of goods specified…… in the third column
thereof (2) The State Government may, after giving by …….. deemed to be amended accord-ingly."

Thus under the Act all articles mentioned in the Schedule were exempt from Sales Tax and articles
not so specified were taxable. In the Schedule applicable there were originally two items which are
relevant for the purposes of the case. They were items Nos. 6 and 36: Item 6 Vegetables-Except when
sold in sealed containers.

1
H.N. TEWARI , Legal Research Methodology 95 ( Allahabad Law Agency , 1997 ) .
2
Hereinafter referred to as the “Act”.
2|Page
Reliance was placed by the petitioners on the dictionary meaning of the word "vegetable" as given in
Shorter Oxford Dictionary where the word is defined as "of or pertaining to, comprised or consisting
of, or derived, or obtained from plants or their parts".

JUDGEMENT

The word “vegetable” must be construed not in any technical sense nor from the botanical point of
view but as understood in common parlance. It has not been defined in the Act and being a word of
every day use it must be construed in its popular sense meaning "that sense which people conversant
with the subject matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it."

"In our opinion, the word "vegetables" cannot be given the comprehensive meaning the term bears in
natural history and has not been given that meaning in taxing statutes before. The term "vegetables"
is to be understood as commonly understood denoting those classes of vegetable matter which are
grown in kitchen gardens and are used for the table."

Hence betel leaves were held not to be included in the category or class of “vegetables” and
were not exempt from tax. The petition was consequentially dismissed with costs.

CONCLUSION AND CONTEMPORARY CRITICISM OF THE RULE OF PLAIN

INTERPRETATION

There are sure deformities in the plain rule of interpretation. The imperfections might be of two sorts
Logical imperfection which constitutes of uncertainty, irregularity and deficiency and the second sort
is irrational defect . Ambiguity happens where a term or an expression utilized as a part of a statute
has not one but rather different implications, and it is not clear which one specific importance it
speaks to at which specific setting or place. So here the court should go past the statute but then
adhere to a similar strict expressions of the statute to find out its importance. Likewise the ambiguity
now and again is "syntactic" which implies the dubiousness emerges from words like "or","and", "all"
and other such words. For instance if a punishment for a specific wrongdoing is "fine or detainment
or both", the court can detain the denounced or force a fine or force a fine and additionally detain him.
On the off chance that the dialect of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the Court can't dispose of
the plain importance, regardless of the possibility that it prompts to an injustice. The words can't be

3|Page
seen appropriately without the setting in which it is utilized. The strict adherence to this rule may
bring about injustice and now and again it may give comes about which are very as opposed to
general goal of the statute or sound judgment. In the event that there is some lacuna or oversight in
the statute which keeps it from giving a total thought, or it makes it legitimately inadequate, it is the
obligation of the court to make up the deformity by including or changing something, however the
court is not permitted to accomplish more than that. It is allowable just in situations where the statutes
are inapplicable in their present frame, which is fragmented. For the change, either adjustment or
expansion the court investigates the matters which will likely help it in finding out the expectation
and intent of the legislature .

4|Page
Page | 5