Popular meaning of "vegetables" governs tax exemption; betel leaves remained taxable and the conditional fee notification was valid.

Betel leaves were treated as outside the ordinary popular meaning of "vegetables" under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, because the term was undefined and had to be read in its common, table-use sense. On that basis, they were not exempt and remained taxable. The Court also upheld the conditional exemption notification requiring payment of a fee, holding that the statute expressly authorised such a condition and that the distinction between sellers of betel leaves and sellers of vegetables was a valid classification. The notification was therefore not discriminatory and did not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether betel leaves fall within the expression "vegetables" in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and are exempt from sales tax. (ii) Whether the notification requiring payment of a fee for exemption violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether betel leaves fall within the expression "vegetables" in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and are exempt from sales tax.

Analysis: The expression "vegetables" was not defined in the Act. Read in the setting of the exempted items in the Schedule, the word was taken in its popular meaning, namely vegetables ordinarily grown for table use. Betel leaves were held not to answer that description.

Conclusion: Betel leaves are not vegetables for the purposes of exemption and are taxable under the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the notification requiring payment of a fee for exemption violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 4(2) expressly authorised conditional exemption on payment of such fee as may be specified in the notification. The differentiation between sellers of betel leaves and sellers of vegetables was based on a valid statutory classification and did not amount to hostile discrimination. The fee could not be treated as an unconstitutional restriction on the right to carry on trade.

Conclusion: The notification was valid and did not infringe Articles 14 or 19(1)(g).

Final Conclusion: The petitions were held to be without substance and the challenge to the sales tax notices and exemption notification failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute uses an undefined commodity description, the term is to be understood in its popular sense, and a conditional exemption authorised by statute does not offend constitutional guarantees if the classification is reasonable and statutorily sanctioned.

---