Horticultural produce classification: peeled and dried arecanut retained its character under the sales tax statute.

Arecanut sold after peeling and drying of the kernel did not lose its character as horticultural produce under section 2(i) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The court treated the assessee's activity as limited to gathering, peeling and drying, which was materially less than the processing considered in the related Coimbatore matter and did not alter the essential nature of the commodity. The arecanut therefore continued to fall within the statutory description of horticultural produce.

---

---

Issues: Whether arecanut sold by the assessees in South Kanara, after peeling and drying, ceased to be horticultural produce within the meaning of section 2(i) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The assessees' process was limited to gathering the arecanut, peeling it, and drying the kernel before sale. That treatment was materially less than the processing considered in the related matter involving Coimbatore district, and it did not alter the essential character of the commodity. The arecanut sold in that form continued to answer the description of horticultural produce under the Act.

Conclusion: The arecanut did not cease to be horticultural produce and remained within section 2(i) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.

---