1995 (11) TMI 397

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anuary 28, 1984, in Appeal Nos. 232 and 233-IV/83: "Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that watery coconut is not exempt from payment of entry tax in terms of entry 5(viii) of Schedule II of Entry Tax Act?" 2.. Facts lie in a narrow compass. The assessee is a trader in coconut apart from oil. For the Diwali year 1978-79 and 1979-80, it was assessed to entry tax considering watery coconut as liable to entry tax (annexures "B/1" and "B/2"). The assessee appealed to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Ujjain, submitting that coconut and watery coconut were two different things, and contending that watery coconut is not liable to payment of entry tax. The appellate authority, ho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In other words watery coconut is not shown to be taxable item. 7.. In [1974] 34 STC 103 (Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Coconut & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh), the apex Court held as under: "We also accept the contention put forward on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh that 'watery coconuts' and 'dried coconuts' are two distinct commodities commercially speaking. Watery coconuts are put to a variety of uses, e.g., for cooking purposes, for religious and social functions, whereas dried coconuts are used mainly for extracting oil. This Court has in a number of cases held that the same commodity at different stages could be treated and taxed as commercially different articles. In A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor & Co. v. State of Madras [1964] 15 STC 71....