Common parlance interpretation of tax exemptions treated de-oiled cake as covered by the feed and fodder entry

Writ petitions were entertained despite an alternative statutory remedy because the dispute turned on a pure question of interpretation affecting multiple assessees and raising the risk of multiplicity of proceedings. In construing the sales tax exemption entry, the court applied the common parlance test rather than a technical or scientific meaning, and treated the words "such as" as illustrative. On that basis, de-oiled cake was regarded as cattle feed or fodder within the tax-free entry even before the amendment inserting "including de-oiled cake"; the later amendment was treated as clarificatory. Reassessment under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act was therefore unsustainable on that view.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite availability of an alternative statutory remedy, and (ii) whether de-oiled cake fell within the tax-free entry for feed and fodder prior to the amendment inserting the words "including de-oiled cake", so as to invalidate the reassessment made under Section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The challenge turned on a pure question of interpretation of the relevant entry, with no disputed factual inquiry of substance. Since the controversy affected a number of assessees and a decision on the point would avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Court entertained the writ petitions notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether de-oiled cake fell within the tax-free entry for feed and fodder prior to the amendment inserting the words "including de-oiled cake", so as to invalidate the reassessment made under Section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Analysis: The expression in a sales tax entry is to be understood in its popular or common parlance sense and not in a technical or scientific sense. The words "such as" in the entry indicated that the listed items were illustrative, not exhaustive. On that approach, de-oiled cake was treated in common parlance as cattle feed or fodder. The later insertion of the words "including de-oiled cake" was treated as clarificatory and consistent with the true meaning of the entry rather than as a fresh exclusion for the prior period.

Conclusion: De-oiled cake was covered by the tax-free entry even before 1-4-1991, and the reassessments made on the contrary view were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment orders were set aside and the writ petitions were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A sales tax entry must be construed according to common parlance, and where the wording is illustrative and a later amendment is clarificatory, the amended expression may confirm the pre-existing coverage of the commodity within the exempted entry.

---