THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, MUMBAI v. SUDHA INSTANT SOFT DRINKS AND ESSENCES, NAGPUR
Sales Tax - Classification of Canned Fruits: Applying the Common Parlance Test to Determine if Pineapple Slices and Fruit Cocktail Qualify as 'Fresh Fruits' under the Bombay Sales Tax Act.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:23507-DB
Decision Date: 04-12-2025
List of Laws
Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959; Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963; Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959; Common Parlance Test
Case Brief
- Facts: The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai, filed a Sales Tax Reference against Sudha Instant Soft Drinks and Essences, Nagpur, regarding the taxability of pineapple slices, pineapple tidbits, and fruit cocktail preserved in sugar syrup and canned in vacuum-sealed tin containers. The Assessee claimed these goods were 'fresh fruits' under Entry A-23 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act and thus exempt from tax. The Assessee was engaged in the manufacture and sale of juices, instant soft drinks, and processed food items.
- Procedural Posture: The Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, relying on a Supreme Court decision, held in favor of the Assessee, classifying the goods as 'fresh fruit'. This Sales Tax Reference was filed under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, challenging the Tribunal's order.
- Issue: Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that pineapple slices, pineapple tidbits, and fruit cocktail preserved in sugar syrup and canned in vacuum-sealed tin containers are 'fresh fruits' covered by Entry A-23 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act and therefore not liable to tax.
- Holding: The High Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the goods in question are 'fresh fruits' under Entry A-23 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act and are consequently liable to be taxed. The Reference was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the Assessee.
- Reasoning: The Court applied the "common parlance test," stating that the term 'fresh fruit' should be understood in its popular or commercial sense. Referring to precedents, including His Majesty the King Vs. Planters Nut and Chocolate Company Limited, the Court reasoned that a householder asked to bring home 'fresh fruit' would not typically bring canned or preserved items. The Court emphasized that the legislature's use of the word "fresh" indicates an intention to exclude fruits not in their natural state. The Court distinguished the case from Pio Food Packers, noting that the issue there concerned the consumption of original pineapple for manufacture, not the classification of goods as 'fresh fruits'. The Court also cited Sterling Foods Vs. The State of Karnataka, drawing parallels between processed shrimps and canned fruits, both losing their 'fresh' characteristic through processing.