Common parlance test for tax exemptions: sugar-cane was outside "green vegetables" and remained taxable as goods sold.

Tax exemption notifications are construed by ordinary common-parlance meaning: sugar-cane was treated as a grass cultivated for sugar, not as "green vegetables," so it did not qualify for exemption. The commentary also notes that the statutory definition of "dealer" was broad enough to include a producer and seller of goods, bringing the sugar-cane seller within tax liability. It further states that the 1950 amendment to the dealer definition was not confined to a single financial year, because the preamble could not limit the plain text of the amendment, and no presidential assent issue arose where the matter fell within the State's taxing power.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sugar-cane falls within the expression "green vegetables" in the exemption notification issued under section 6 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947; (ii) Whether the appellant, as a producer and seller of sugar-cane, was a "dealer" within section 2(c) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947; (iii) Whether the amendment to the definition of "dealer" made by the Bihar Annual Finance Act, 1950 was confined to the financial year beginning on 1 April 1950, and whether presidential assent was required.

Issue (i): Whether sugar-cane falls within the expression "green vegetables" in the exemption notification issued under section 6 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Analysis: The expression "vegetables" in a taxing statute must be understood in its ordinary or common parlance meaning. The earlier authority relied upon by the appellant was not followed, and the Court applied the common understanding of the word as referring to vegetables grown for the table. Sugar-cane, being a grass cultivated for sugar, does not answer that description and cannot be brought within the exemption for "green vegetables".

Conclusion: The issue is answered against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant, as a producer and seller of sugar-cane, was a "dealer" within section 2(c) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Analysis: The definition of "dealer" in section 2(c) is wide enough to include any person who sells or supplies goods, including a firm, Hindu joint family, Government, or associations of the kind specified in the provision. On that language, the appellant was plainly covered by the definition.

Conclusion: The issue is answered against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the amendment to the definition of "dealer" made by the Bihar Annual Finance Act, 1950 was confined to the financial year beginning on 1 April 1950, and whether presidential assent was required.

Analysis: The preamble of the Bihar Annual Finance Act, 1950 could not cut down the plain words of section 2(c) of the Act or confine the amendment to a single year. Nothing in the amending provision showed that it was temporary. The amendment operated according to its terms. The challenge based on lack of presidential assent also failed because the matter fell within the State's taxing power in Entry 54 of List II.

Conclusion: The issue is answered against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The Court found no merit in the constitutional and statutory challenges, held that sugar-cane was not exempt as green vegetables, and upheld the tax assessments and the appellant's liability under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: In taxing statutes, words describing goods are construed according to their common parlance meaning, and an item not ordinarily understood as falling within the exempted class cannot claim the exemption.

---