Commercial parlance classification upheld for pistachio and almond, with retrospective amendment confirming tax coverage.

Pistachio and almond were treated as "nuts" for entry tax purposes because fiscal classification follows common and commercial parlance, under which both commodities are understood as nuts. The court also noted that a subsequent amendment expressly naming almonds and pista operated retrospectively from the commencement of the principal Act, bringing those goods within the statutory description even apart from ordinary meaning. On both grounds, the levy was sustained and the challenge to classification failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether pistachio and almond were classifiable as "nuts" under the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1972; (ii) whether the subsequent amendment by the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977 brought those goods within the expression "nuts" retrospectively.

Issue (i): Whether pistachio and almond were classifiable as "nuts" under the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1972.

Analysis: The relevant classification had to be understood in the sense in which the commodity was commonly and commercially understood. On that basis, pistachio was understood in common and trade parlance as an edible nut, and almond was also understood as a kind of nut.

Conclusion: The classification of pistachio and almond as nuts was upheld, in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsequent amendment by the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977 brought those goods within the expression "nuts" retrospectively.

Analysis: The amendment expressly substituted the entry to include nuts and specifically named almonds and pista, and it was given retrospective effect by legal fiction from the date of commencement of the principal Act. This placed the goods within the statutory description even apart from their ordinary meaning.

Conclusion: The amendment retrospectively covered almonds and pistachio, in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The levy was sustained on both the original classification and the retrospective statutory amendment, so the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For fiscal classification, goods are to be understood in common and commercial parlance, and where the legislature expressly includes the goods by retrospective amendment, that statutory inclusion governs the charge.

---