Common parlance test for edible oil brings maize oil within tax classification for edible use.

Where a taxing statute does not define "edible oil," the term is construed in its ordinary sense and by reference to allied control orders and market use. Maize (corn) oil was held to fall within that description because the relevant storage control order treated oil used directly or after processing for human consumption as edible oil, and the supply was intended for manufacture of vegetable ghee and other edible oils. Food adulteration standards were treated as serving a different regulatory purpose and were not decisive for tax classification. The oil was therefore held to be edible oil, and the higher tax rate applicable to non-edible oil could not be imposed against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether maize (corn) oil manufactured and sold by the assessee is an edible oil for the purposes of sales tax.

Analysis: Edible oil was not defined in the taxing enactments, so the expression was construed in the light of its ordinary meaning and its use in allied control orders. The relevant storage control order defined edible oil as any oil used directly or after processing for human consumption, showing that processing is not a necessary precondition if the oil is otherwise capable of human consumption. The Central Government notifications also treated maize oil as an edible oil for use in the manufacture of vegetable oil, and the buyers' specifications indicated that the oil supplied by the assessee was intended for use by manufacturers of vegetable ghee and vegetable oils. The standards in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules were held to serve a different regulatory purpose and were not decisive for tax classification. On that approach, the oil sold by the assessee, though crude and sold for further use in manufacture, answered the description of edible oil in common parlance.

Conclusion: Maize (corn) oil manufactured and sold by the assessee is edible oil; the question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the assessee, and the higher rate of tax could not be applied on the footing that maize oil was non-edible.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute does not define edible oil, the term is to be understood in common parlance and includes an oil capable of direct human consumption or lawful use in edible manufacture, even if further processing is contemplated.

---