Common parlance test excludes betel-nut from "dry or preserved fruit" taxation under the sales tax entry.

Betel-nut is not taxable as "dry or preserved fruit" under item No. 54 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 because sales tax entries are construed by common parlance, trade parlance, and consumer understanding, not by botanical or technical meaning. On that test, betel-nut is not ordinarily understood as a fruit, and dictionary meanings of "nut" do not bring it within the taxing entry. The State exemption notification was noted, but the operative reasoning was that the commodity did not answer the statutory description, so the levy could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether betel-nut is assessable to tax as "dry or preserved fruit" under item No. 54 of the Schedule to the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976.

Analysis: In construing entries in a sales tax statute, the decisive test is the meaning attached to the commodity in common parlance, trade parlance, and by the consumer, not its botanical or technical meaning. The expression "dry or preserved fruit" in item No. 54 was examined on that footing. Although dictionary definitions of "nut" were considered, they did not support treating betel-nut as a fruit in the sense required by the taxing entry. Betel-nut is not understood in everyday usage, in trade, or by the consumer as a fruit, and therefore does not fall within the taxable description. The exemption notification issued by the State Government was noted, but the decision rested on the common parlance meaning of the entry.

Conclusion: Betel-nut is not assessable to sales tax as "dry or preserved fruit" under item No. 54, and the levy fails.

---