Narrow construction of "agricultural produce" upheld tax on fresh fruits as horticultural produce was excluded.

The expression "agricultural produce" in rule 5(2)(f) was construed narrowly by reading the scheme and wording of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950. Because the Act separately referred to "agricultural" and "horticultural" produce, the Legislature was taken not to have used "agriculture" as including horticulture, and no word was to be treated as redundant. On that basis, fruits were held outside "agricultural produce" for the rule's purpose, so the notification levying tax on fresh fruits was not repugnant to the rule and remained valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the expression "agricultural produce" in rule 5(2)(f) of the sales tax rules includes horticultural produce such as fruits, and consequently whether the notification levying tax on fresh fruits is repugnant to the rule and ultra vires.

Analysis: The expression "agriculture" may bear a wide meaning in some contexts, but its meaning must be gathered from the scheme, text and purpose of the enactment. Section 2(m) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, 1950 distinguished between "agricultural" and "horticultural" produce by using both expressions separately in the proviso to the definition of turnover. That juxtaposition showed that the Legislature did not intend the word "agriculture" to include horticulture. Applying the rule that no word should be treated as redundant, the expression in rule 5(2)(f) was read in its narrow sense. On that construction, fruits were outside the scope of "agricultural produce" for the purpose of the rule.

Conclusion: The notification levying tax on fresh fruits was not inconsistent with rule 5(2)(f) and was valid. The challenge to the notification failed.

---