M. C. AGARWAL, J. - (1.) These eight revision petitions under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 have been preferred by the dealer against a common order dated March 2, 1993, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Jhansi, whereby it dismissed the dealer's second appeals Nos. 426 to 433 of 1990, holding that "jatawala panidar narial", i. e. , watery coconut with fibrous husk is not fresh fruit or vegetable and is not exempt from sales tax and further that the same are taxable at the rate of 8 per cent as unclassified goods. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel. The assessing officer made provisional assessment under rule 41 (5) in respect of dealer's turnover of the coconuts of the type mentioned above. Such assessments involved in the present proceedings are as under : STR No. Month and year for which assessments made STR No. 743/93 May, 1989 STR No. 744/93 September, 1989 STR No. 745/93 August, 1989 STR No. 746/93 November, 1989 STR No. 747/93 June, 1989 STR No. 748/93 October, 1989 STR No. 749/93 April, 1989 STR No. 750/93 July, 1989 The dealer had not paid any tax on the turnover pertaining to the sale of the said coconuts hereinafter described as watery coconuts. It seems that the dealer's contention was that this type of coconuts came within the category of fresh fruits and vegetable that were not liable to tax under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. This contention was negatived by the assessing officer and he taxed the turnover treating the watery coconuts as unclassified item. Provisional assessments were, therefore, made for the months referred to above. The dealer preferred appeals to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) but failed. The dealer then preferred second appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal which by the order referred to above has dismissed all the eight appeals upholding the view taken by the authorities below that coconut was not a fresh fruit or vegetable and was taxable as an unclassified item. In the present revision petitions, the only question of law pressed at the hearing before me is that even though the watery coconut was not a fresh fruit and vegetable yet it was oil-seed within the meaning of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and, therefore, in terms of section 15 of that Act it could not be taxed at a rate of more than 4 per cent. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that watery coconuts were tender coconuts and were, therefore, excluded from the definition of oil-seeds as contained in section 14 (vi) (viii) of that Act. Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act ("the Central Act") describes certain goods to be of special importance in inter-State commerce. Sub-clause (vi) of section 14 pertains to oil-seeds and various items from Nos. 1 to 20 have been described as oil-seeds. Item (viii) relates to coconut and with reference to this item sub-clause (vi) reads as under : (vi) Oil-seeds, that is to say. . . . . . . (viii) Coconut (i. e. , copra excluding tender coconuts) (cocosnucifera); Section 15 of the Central Act provides that every sales tax law of a State shall in so far as it imposes or authorises imposition of tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods be subject to certain restrictions and conditions and one of the restrictions is that tax on the sale or purchase of such goods inside the State shall not exceed 4 per cent. The controversy between the parties is thus now restricted as to whether watery coconuts are declared goods within the meaning of section 14 of the Central Act and the turnover of their sale in the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot be subjected to sales tax at a rate of more than 4 per cent. In the impugned assessment this turnover has been taxed at the rate of 8 per cent. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the description of coconut in item No. (viii) of section 14 (vi) of the Central Act includes coconut of all varieties excluding "tender coconuts" and that the watery coconuts sold by the dealer were coconuts with fully developed kernel and were, therefore, not tender coconuts. Thus such coconuts are declared goods within the meaning of the Central Act. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that in item No. (viii) the word coconut has been used as a synonym of copra which means dried coconuts and, therefore, watery coconuts are also included within the scope of tender coconuts that have been excluded from the definition of "coconuts". The learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on Sri Krishna Coconut Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1965] 16 STC 511 in which the honorable Andhra Pradesh High Court had to deal with the meaning of "tender coconuts" as used in the Third Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. Item No. 5 in the said Schedule reads as follows : " The expression 'coconut' in this Schedule means fresh or dried coconuts, shelled or unshelled including copra, but excluding tender coconuts. " The honourable High Court observed : ". . . . . . . . . . . The question is whether there is a category of coconuts not covered by the description of either tender or dried. I think the answer must be in the affirmative. 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. " Thus in this case it was recognised that in between the "tender coconuts' and "dried coconuts" there is yet another variety of coconut in which the kernel is fully developed and it contains water. It was not disputed on the side of the Revenue that the dealer in the present case before me deals in this type of coconuts which according to the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court cannot be called tender coconut. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Tagoob Mohammad v. Commercial Tax Officer [1971] 28 STC 110, in which the expression "oil-seeds" as it was defined in section 14 (vi) of the Central Act at the relevant time came for interpretation and it was held that watery coconuts are oil-seeds within the definition contained in section 14 (vi) which was as under : (vi) "oil-seeds, that is to say, seeds yielding non-volatile oils used for human consumption, or in industry, or in the manufacture of varnishes, soaps and the like, or in lubrication, and volatile oils used chiefly in medicines, perfumes, cosmetics and the like. " The controversy raised in this case was whether watery coconuts in which the kernel is fully formed but the water had not dried up were oil-seeds within the definition mentioned above and the Division Bench held that watery coconuts also yield oil though in less quantity and, therefore, such coconuts are oil-seeds within the definition as referred to above. The learned Standing Counsel contended that this authority is of no help because it deals with a different definition of "oil-seeds" while we are at present concerned with the definition of "oil-seeds" as contained in section 14 (vi) of the Central Act. The present definition was enacted with effect from April 1, 1973. It is true that the definition that was the subject-matter of discussion before the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was different but is seems that the definition that was incorporated from April 1, 1973, was to avoid controversies like the one raised before the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In the earlier definition the oil-seeds were not mentioned by their names but whether a thing was an oil-seed depended on the yield of oil of the type mentioned in the definition of "oil-seeds". The definition substituted from April 1, 1973, recognises 20 items as oil-seeds and coconut has been included at serial No. (viii ). Now it is not open to any one to say that a particular thing does not yield oil and, therefore, it will not be an oil-seed or that a particular thing is not a seed and is, therefore, not an oil-seed. For example a tender coconut if had not been excluded from the scope of coconut in item No. (viii) would have had to be treated as a coconut oil-seed although it may not have yielded any oil. The definition as contained in section 14 (vi) (viii) treats coconut as an "oil-seed" and excludes from its scope only tender coconut. What is important in Tagoob Mohammad's case [1971] 28 STC 110 (AP) is that as far back as October 10, 1969, when this judgment was pronounced, it was judicial recognised that watery coconuts are oil-seeds and what is important to remember is that while drafting the present definition of "oil-seeds" the Legislature excluded from the scope of coconut only tender coconut and had not excluded watery coconuts. It is also important to notice that even prior to the insertion of new definition of "oil-seeds" from April 1, 1973, the tender coconuts had been described in the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act as "tender coconuts which are useful only for drinking purpose". Admittedly, watery coconuts are not coconuts which are useful only for drinking purpose and such coconuts are used for culinary and religious purposes throughout the territory of India. The view taken by the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sri Krishna Coconut Co. [1965] 16 STC 511 that watery coconut is not a tender coconut was approved by the honourable Supreme Court in Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Coconut and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1974] 34 STC 103. That was a case in which the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act came for interpretation and the honourable Court observed that for the first time coconuts were divided into three classes, i. e. , tender coconuts, watery coconuts and coconuts. On behalf of the revisionist, reliance was also placed on a judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Sita Ram Joginder Kumar [1982] 49 STC 145 in which it was held that watery coconut is not a perishable item and is an oil-seed within the meaning of section 14 (vi) of the Central Act. The view taken by the honourable Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Krishna Coconut Co. [1965] 16 STC 511 has again been approved by the Supreme Court in Shri Bharuch Coconut Trading Co. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad STI 1991 SC 18. The honourable Supreme Court observed that watery coconut is a ripened coconut and cannot be considered to be a vegetable or fruit. Impliedly the honourable Supreme Court held that such a coconut was not a tender coconut. The honourable Supreme Court further observed that watery coconut (brown coconut) is a separate entity by itself. This separate entity has not been excluded from the scope of coconut in section 14 (vi) (viii ). What has been excluded is merely tender coconut. The learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Mahamaya Coconuts [1976] 38 STC 120 in which it was held that watery coconut in its proper sense is not an oil-seed. This case deals with the definition of "oil-seeds" as it was contained in section 14 (vi) of the Central Sales Tax Act prior to April 1, 1973. As already stated there are views to the contrary and even the honourable Supreme Court has held that watery coconut is a distinct variety of coconut. Coconut is now an oil-seed as defined in section 14 (vi) (viii) and in view of that definition every coconut excluding tender coconut, is an oil-seed irrespective of whether it is capable of yielding oil or not. Reliance was also placed on Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Coconut and Co. [1974] 34 STC 103 (SC) which as discussed above supports the case of the dealer and not that of Revenue. It was contended that the Legislature has further clarified the meaning of coconut by using a Malayalam synonym, i. e. , copra which means dried coconut only. In my view the word copra has not been used by the Legislature as to mean dried coconut only. Had it been so there was no need for the Legislature to clarify that tender coconuts are excluded from the purview of the copra because that was totally unnecessary. From the manner in which the entry at serial No. (viii) in section 14 (vi) has been drafted it is clear that the word copra has been used as a synonym for coconut and not to describe only a particular variety thereof. Reliance was also placed by the learned Standing Counsel on Har Narain and Sons v. State of U. P. [1992] 84 STC 323; 1990 UPTC 519 in which a Division Bench of this Court held that coconut with husk cannot be said to be fresh fruit and is not exempt from sales tax. In this case, the assessing officer had charged sales tax at the rate of 8 per cent treating coconut as an unclassified item. A perusal of this judgment would show that the dealer had not contended that coconut was declared goods within the meaning of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and, therefore, sales tax at more than 4 per cent cannot be charged. The stand taken by the dealer was that coconut was a fresh fruit and hence was exempt from tax. This ruling, therefore, cannot be said to lay down that coconut does not come in the category of the declared goods under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. On behalf of the State reliance is also placed on State of Tamil Nadu v. Pyare Lal Malhotra [1976] 37 STC 319 (SC); 1976 UPTC 282 SC. This judgment relates to the classification of various types of goods under the entry "iron and steel" in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and it was laid down that the purpose of using the word "that it to say" was to indicate the type of goods each of which would constitute a separate class for series of sales. This authority, therefore, does not deal with the controversy in question and is of no help to the respondent. In view of above discussions, it is clear that watery coconut of the type in which the present dealer has dealt has been judicially as well as legislatively recognised as a type of coconut which is different from tender coconut. The Legislature in drafting the clause (viii) of sub-section (vi) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act has excluded only tender coconut from the categories of coconuts and, therefore, watery coconut comes within the scope of this entry. I, therefore, hold that watery coconut is a declared commodity under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and the U. P. sales tax thereon has to be restricted to the limit of 4 per cent as prescribed in section 15 of that Act. The learned Sales Tax Tribunal was, therefore, in error in confirming the taxability thereof at the rate of 8 per cent. For the above reasons, these revision petitions are allowed and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in so far as it relates to the rate of sales tax livable on the commodity in question. The Tribunal is directed to pass fresh order on the assessee's appeals in this regard in the light of this judgment. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petitions allowed. .;