Statutory definition controls agricultural produce exemption, excluding rubber and latex from Karnataka entry tax relief.

Rubber and latex do not qualify as "agricultural produce" for exemption under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 because the Act's own definition of "agricultural produce or horticultural produce" expressly excludes rubber. The later statutory definition controls the scope of the exemption, and the court cannot rely on the earlier parent law to enlarge it. The reference to agricultural produce in the Second Schedule must be read subject to the defining section, so the specific exclusion of rubber prevails for purposes of Section 3(6). The Tribunal's contrary interpretation was therefore incorrect.

---

---

Issues: Whether rubber or latex qualifies as agricultural produce for exemption under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979.

Analysis: The statutory definition of "agricultural produce or horticultural produce" in Section 2(1) expressly excludes rubber. Where the Legislature has consciously incorporated a definition in the later Act that differs from the earlier law, the court must give effect to the definition in the present Act and cannot travel back to the parent enactment to expand the scope of exemption. The entry in the Second Schedule must also be read in the light of the defining section; even though Item No. 2 refers to agricultural produce, the specific exclusion of rubber in the definition governs the interpretation of that expression for purposes of exemption under Section 3(6).

Conclusion: Rubber and latex do not qualify as exempt agricultural produce under the Act, and the Tribunal's contrary view was erroneous.

---