Sales tax exemption for betel leaves was not saved by the general vegetable entry, with commodity-based classification upheld.

Betel leaves were treated as distinct from vegetables for sales tax purposes, because "vegetables" in a taxing statute is read in its ordinary commercial sense and not in a wide botanical sense; the specific exemption for betel leaves therefore did not continue after its deletion. The article also states that Act XVI of 1949 was not invalid for want of Governor-General's assent or for alleged non-compliance with the Schedule-amendment procedure, since any defect in the earlier delegated field was severable and did not limit the Legislature's plenary power to amend its own Act. It further notes that taxing betel leaves while exempting vegetables did not amount to unconstitutional discrimination, as the classification was by commodity rather than dealer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether betel leaves continued to be exempt from sales tax under the entry for vegetables after deletion of the specific entry for betel leaves; (ii) whether Act XVI of 1949 was invalid for want of the Governor-General's assent and for alleged failure to follow the procedure prescribed for amendment of the Schedule; and (iii) whether the levy amounted to impermissible discrimination.

Issue (i): Whether betel leaves continued to be exempt from sales tax under the entry for vegetables after deletion of the specific entry for betel leaves.

Analysis: The word "vegetables" in a taxing statute is to be understood in its ordinary and common acceptation, not in the wide botanical sense. Commodities that may be vegetables in natural history are not necessarily vegetables for sales tax purposes. Betel leaves are not ordinarily used as food or as a kitchen-garden vegetable, but as a masticatory. The specific exemption for betel leaves was therefore distinct from the general entry for vegetables, and its deletion had legal effect.

Conclusion: The exemption for betel leaves did not survive under the entry for vegetables, and the levy was valid on that footing.

Issue (ii): Whether Act XVI of 1949 was invalid for want of the Governor-General's assent and for alleged failure to follow the procedure prescribed for amendment of the Schedule.

Analysis: The defect, if any, in the earlier legislation concerned only the provision that altered the occupied field and required Governor-General's assent. That defect was severable and did not invalidate the entire Act. The Provincial Legislature retained plenary power to amend the Act itself, and the conditions attached to delegated power under section 6 did not bind the Legislature when it acted in its own legislative capacity. The challenged amendment was therefore not vitiated on these grounds.

Conclusion: Act XVI of 1949 was valid and effective in so far as it related to the present matter.

Issue (iii): Whether the levy amounted to impermissible discrimination.

Analysis: Sales tax legislation may select particular commodities for taxation and exempt others. Taxing betel leaves while leaving vegetables exempt does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination between dealers, because the classification is by commodity and not by dealer.

Conclusion: No discriminatory treatment was made out.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the sales tax notices failed in all material respects, and the petition was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A specific exemption in a taxing statute is not enlarged by strained construction of a general term, and a legislature's plenary power to amend its law is not curtailed by procedural conditions attached to delegated amendment powers.

---