Commercial classification of Bru as coffee prevailed over a general beverage entry under sales tax law.

Bru powder was held not to fall within the entry for non-alcoholic drinks and beverages because sales tax classification depends on popular and commercial understanding, and a powder used to make a drink is not itself a drink. For the later period, Bru was treated as coffee under the specific entry covering coffee, including coffee powder, rather than the broader entry for branded non-alcoholic drinks and beverages. The specific entry prevailed over the general one because the product commercially answered the description of coffee. The assessee's classification was accepted and the higher levy under the wider entry was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sale turnover of Bru was taxable under item 25P of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for the period up to 15 September 1980; (ii) Whether Bru was classifiable under item 33 or item 21 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for the period from 16 September 1980 and for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83.

Issue (i): Whether the sale turnover of Bru was taxable under item 25P of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for the period up to 15 September 1980.

Analysis: Item 25P covered non-alcoholic drinks and beverages, bottled or canned and sold under brand name. Bru was sold as a powder and not as a drink or beverage in liquid form. The classification of sales tax entries must be understood in their popular and commercial sense. On that basis, a soft-drink concentrate or powder is not itself a drink or beverage merely because it is used to prepare one. The reasoning applicable to soft-drink concentrate was treated as governing the present case.

Conclusion: Bru was not taxable under item 25P for the period up to 15 September 1980 and the higher levy under that entry was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether Bru was classifiable under item 33 or item 21 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for the period from 16 September 1980 and for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83.

Analysis: Item 21 specifically covered coffee, including coffee powder, while item 33 was a wider entry for non-alcoholic drinks, squashes, sauces and beverages, bottled or canned and sold under brand name. Bru consisted mainly of coffee and was commercially understood as a form of coffee. In sales tax classification, a specific entry prevails over a general entry when the goods properly fall within the specific description. The commercial parlance test supported treating Bru as coffee rather than as a branded non-alcoholic beverage. The subsequent separate treatment of French coffee also supported the view that coffee-chicory mixtures were regarded as coffee in the relevant period.

Conclusion: Bru was classifiable under item 21, not item 33, for the period from 16 September 1980 and for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83.

Final Conclusion: The common order of the appellate authority was set aside and the classification adopted by the assessee was accepted, resulting in relief to the assessee in all the revision cases.

Ratio Decidendi: For sales tax classification, goods must be construed in their popular and commercial sense, and where an article answers a specific entry, it cannot be brought under a more general entry merely because of its use or mode of preparation.

---