Common parlance test controls sales tax exemption: ripened coconut is neither a fresh fruit nor a vegetable.

Fiscal exemptions are construed in their common and commercial sense, not by botanical or technical meaning, so ripened coconut was held not to fall within "fresh fruits" or "vegetables" under the exemption notification. The analysis treated the notification as aimed at a narrower class of perishable items and noted that coconut had been specifically excluded under earlier exemptions. Because coconut is not ordinarily understood in common parlance as a fresh fruit or a vegetable, and its culinary use did not change that character, the exemption did not apply and the revenue's challenge succeeded in the connected tax matter.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether ripened coconut is a fresh fruit within the meaning of the sales tax exemption notification; (ii) Whether ripened coconut is a vegetable within the meaning of the same exemption notification.

Issue (i): Whether ripened coconut is a fresh fruit within the meaning of the sales tax exemption notification.

Analysis: The exemption had to be construed in the popular sense and in the context of the notification and the scheme of the Act, not by botanical or technical definitions. The legislative history showed that coconut had been specifically excluded under earlier exemptions, and the later use of the expression "fresh fruits" indicated a narrower compendious category aimed at perishable items. On that basis, coconut could not be treated as falling within the expression "fresh fruits".

Conclusion: Ripened coconut is not a fresh fruit for the purpose of the exemption notification.

Issue (ii): Whether ripened coconut is a vegetable within the meaning of the same exemption notification.

Analysis: The word "vegetable" in taxing statutes is understood in its common and commercial sense as referring to items commonly grown in kitchen gardens and used as substantial articles of food. Coconut was not regarded as a substantial article of food nor as an item ordinarily treated as a vegetable in common parlance. The fact that its kernel may be used as an ingredient in cooking was insufficient to bring it within the exemption.

Conclusion: Ripened coconut is not a vegetable for the purpose of the exemption notification.

Final Conclusion: The exemption notification did not cover ripened coconut, so the assessee failed on the exemption claim and the revenue's challenge succeeded in the connected tax matter.

Ratio Decidendi: In construing fiscal exemptions, words such as "fresh fruits" and "vegetables" must be given their common parlance meaning in the statutory context, and an article not ordinarily understood as a fresh fruit or vegetable does not qualify for exemption merely because it has some culinary use or botanical affinity.

---