- (1.) The appeal is concerned with a notification issued by the respondent- State of Rajasthan on 9/3/1970, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, levying sales tax at the rateof 7% on "watery coconuts". The notification was challenged on the ground that watery coconuts fell within the purview of Section 14 of the central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and that, therefore, the levy at the rate of 7% was bad. The notification was upheld by a learned Single Judge and, in the order appealed against, by a division bench of the High court, reliance being placed upon the judgment of this court in Sri Siddhi vinayaka Coconut and Co. v. State of A. P
(2.) In Section 14 of the central Sales Tax Act certain goods are specified which are of "special importance in inter-State trade or commerce". They include: "(Vi) Oilseeds, that is to say,- (Viii) Coconut (i. e. Copra excluding tender coconuts) (Cocos nucifera) ;"to these goods the restrictions contained in Section 15 apply. It is not in dispute that if watery coconuts fall within the purview of Section 14, the notification levying sales tax thereon at the rate of 7% would be bad in law.
(3.) The principal question, therefore, is: What are watery coconuts We find that the A. P. High court in Sri Krishna Coconut Co. v. CTO has squarely dealt with the question. The court said: "In a tender coconut, the kernel is hardly formed or is only in the initial stages of formation. In a dried coconut the kernel has formed and fully developed and further the water inside the coconut has dried up leading to the drying of the kernel also. But a fully grown coconut with a well-developed kernel which contains water cannot be called either a tender or a dried coconut. This is the well-known variety of coconuts used for culinary purposes and on auspicious occasions and as part of the offerings in temples. I do not think it is correct or reasonable to describe this class of coconuts as either dried or tender. "the distinction is also indicated in the judgment of this court in Sri Siddhi vinayaka Coconut and Co. , which was relied upon by the High court, where it was said, "undoubtedly it is the watery coconut that in due course becomes dry coconut or copra". There is no material placed upon the record by the respondent-State to show that "watery coconuts" are outside the scope of Section l4 (vi) (viii).;