ALLADL KUPPUSWAMI, J.

( 1 ) THE common question chat arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether copra was liable to sales-tax during the relevant assessment year at the point of last purchase in the State under Item 5 of Schedule III of the andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (referred to in this judgment as the Act) read with sec. 6 of the Act. Though the petitioners and the assessment years are different In the three writ petitions, it is admitted that the decision In one of them will govern the other writ petitions. Hence, it is sufficient to set out the facts and contentions in W P No 3447/73.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a dealer In copra and cocount oil at Ambajipet, East godavari District. He purchases copra from registered dealers and converts it into oil. During the assessment years 1964-65 to 1967-68. tax was levied on the purchases made by him on copra on the ground that the purchase was the last purchase within the State and tax schedule III consists of several items. the following terms : was liable at that point: on copra under item 5 of schedule III of the Act read with Sec 6 of the Act. These assess ments were confirmed on appeal by Assistant commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the orders of the Assistant commissioner are illegal, ultravires and without jurisdiction and opposed cc the provisions of the Act

( 3 ) THE relevant provisions of the act as they were in force during the periods of assessment are set out hereunder :"sec. 6 : Notwithstanding anything contained in sec. 5. the sales or purchases of declared goods by a dealer shall be liable to tax at the rate, and only at the point of sale or purchase specified against each In the Third schedule on his turn, over of such sales or purchases for each year Irrespective of the quantum of his turnover In such goods. . . . . . "the relevant item is Item 5 which is in descriptlon of goods. Point of levy rate of tax coconuts at the point of last purchase In the State. 3 paise in the rupee, explanation I at the end of the schedule is In the following terms:"the expression coconut In Item 5 means dried coconuts, shelled or unshelled including copra, but does not include watery coconuts falling under item 0 of the Second Schedule and tender coconuts falling under item 9 of the Fourth schedule. "

( 4 ) TAX was levied on copra on the footing that coconut is mentioned as Item 5 in Schedule III and under the explanation, coconuts means dried coconuts, shelled or unshelled Including copra. It was however, argued by Sri M. Suryanarayana murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner that sec. 6 deals only wl:h declared goods and says that the sales or purchases of such of the declared goods mentioned In schedule III shall be liable to tax at the rate and at the point of sale or purchase specified against each of them in the third schedule. It is therefore, necessary that the goods mentioned in schedule III should be declared goods. Sec. 2 (f) of the Act defines "declared goods" as goods declared under sec. 14 of the Central Salas Tax Act. 1956 to be of special importance in Inter State trade or commerce. At the relevant period under section 14 (vi) of the Central Sales tax Act. certain goods were declared as of special importance Item 6 among those goods is as follows :"oil seeds, that is to say, seeds yielding non-volatile oil used for human consumption, or In industries, or in the manufacture of varnishes, soaps and the like, in lubrication, and volatile oils used chiefly In medicines, perfumes, cosmetics and the like. "

( 5 ) IT is therefore, submitted that it is only oil seeds referred to in Sec. 14 (vi) that are declared goods and unless copra comes within the definition of oil seed it will not be a declared goods and it cannot therefore be included In schedule III of the Act as Sec. 6 deals only with declared foods. It cannot be disputed that If Sec. 6 deals with declared goods, goods which do not properly come within the definition of declared goods cannot be included in schedule III. Therefore, it has to be considered whether copra which by the explanation is included In the expression satisfies the definition of declared goods. Among the declared goods the relevant item is item 6 oi! seeds. . " It is argued that two conditions have to be satisfied, namely, that the particular commodity must be an oil seed and it must be used for human consumption. In this case it is contended that though copra is used for himan consumption. It is not an oil seed. The argument is that a s ed is one which can be so sown which will on sowing germinate Copra, which is normally prepared by taking out the water in the coconut and drying it, is incapable of germinating and hence it is not a seed. In this connection the decision of the madras High Court In City Oil Mil! vs. Joint Comml. Tax Officer (i) XXV STC p. 33 was relied on. It. vas held that though copra was a kernel it had lost the property of a seed and therefore, could not be considered to be an oil seed within the meaning of sec. 14 (vi) of the central SALES TAX ACT, 1956. The decision of the Madras High Court in Kannappa mudaliar vs. State of Madras (2) (1968) 21 S. T. C. P. 41 where It was held that coconuts were not oil seeds was followed. On the other hand, In Commr of sales Tax vs. Ram Kumar Nand Kumar (3) (1973) 3! S. T. C. p 321 It was held that coconuts are oil seeds as defined In sec 3-AA (1) (vi) of the U. P. Sales Tax act, 1948, The decision of the Mysore high Court in Kasturi Seshagiri Pai and co. vs. Deputy Commissioner of South kanara (4) (1961) !2 S T. C. p. 629 and kerala High Court in The Sales Tax Officer kozhlkode vs. K. V. Moosa Koya and another (5) (1966) 18 S. T. C. p. 464 were referred to and followed, it was held that In the commerciai world coconut is known as an oil seed and reference was made to the economic Times which set out the prlcps of the various commodities in the market and under the head oi! and oil-seeds coconut had been mentioned in the same publication there was a separate heading for dry fruits and under that heading, coconut, or copra was not mentioned. The learned judges stated that they were unable to agree with the decision of the madras High Court in S. Kannappa Mudaliar vs. State of Madras (6) (1968) 21 s. T. C. p. 41 and a similar decision of the madhya Pradesh High Court In Commissioner of Sales Tax M,p. Indore vs. Bakhat Rai and co. (7) (1966) 18 STC 285.

( 6 ) THE question whether watery coconuts" are oil seeds came to be considered by this High Court in Tagoob mohammad vs. Comml. Tax Officer (8) (1971) 23 STC p. 110 It was held watery coconuts are oil seeds as they are admittedly seeds and a so yield oil. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following sentence In the said Judgment at page 119 in support of his contention:"hence, for bringing goods within the definition of an oil-seed It should not only be a seed, but also one yielding volatile or non volatile oil. "

( 7 ) ON the s. rength of this observation he contended that it is necessary that a commodity should be a seed before it is included within the definition of oil seed and as copra is not a seed as It is not capable of germinating, it cannot be an oil seed. The learned Judges were not directly concerned in the above case with the question whether copra can be considered to be a seed They were only concerned with the taxability of watery coconut and It seems to have been assumed that it was a seed. It is stated in the judgment "that watery coconut is a seed is In face not seriou ly disputed". The only question for consideration was whether It was an oil seed as it does not directly yield oil. Apart from this, far from being of any assistance to the petitioner, there are certain other observation in that decision which are against the petitioner s contention. For instance, they observed here again, there is not much dispute about the fact chat a dried coconut yields substantial quantity of oil and such oil is extensively ussd for human consumption in industry and in the manufacture of soaps, hair oils and cosmetics. So if coconut is taken to mean only "dried coconut" there can be no dispute that it is an oil-seed within the meaning of section 14 of the Central Act. " at page 120 they referred to the observation of the mysore High Court in kasturi Seshagiri Pai and Co. V. Deputy commissioner of South Kanara (4) Supra that both coconut and copra are commodities from which oil can be extracted. Coconut oil is extracted both from coconut and copra although coconut oil is generally extracted from dried copra. Again, at another part of the judgment they say "admittedly dry coconucs yield oil and it is not disputed that it is an oil seed. it appears therefore, from these observations that the learned judges proceeded on the foo ing that dried coconuts or copra are oil seeds and proceeded to consider whether coconuts are also oil seeds.

( 8 ) THE view expressed In some dec sions that copra is an oil seed within rhe meaning of sec. 14 (vi) of the Central sales Tax commends itself to us In preference to the view expressed in other decisions that it is not an oil seed. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in ramavatar Budhai Prasad. V. Asst. Sales tax Officer (9) (I96j) 12 STC 286 and of Sales Tax v. S. N Brothers (10) (1973) 31 S. T. C. P 302 the expression occurring in schedules to these enactments have to be considered with reference to their meaning in ordinary commercial paralance and should not be construed according to the strict scientific meaning. In the former case, the Supreme court held that betel leaves cannot be considered as vegetables though In the striciscientific sense they would also be vegetables. They observed that in ordinary commercial language or In common pariance betel leaves were not considered as vegetables. In this case also in the ordinary commercial sence, copra, is considered to be an oil-seed and is included in the expression coconut . The coconut is undarstood in several forms, namety, tender coconut watery coconut, dried coconut and copra, and all these come under the expresiion caconut . Except in the caso of tender coconut from which oil cannot be extracted, in all other cases, oil can be extracted and all of them are regarded in common parlance as oil seeds.

( 9 ) WE are not impressed with the argument that as copra cannot be sown and it does not germinate, it is not a seed within rhe strict dictionary meaning of the expression and therefore copra is not an oil seed. If such a strict construe tion is to be given. It would follow that entire coconut with the outer shell which ripens and falls off from the tree alone can be considered to be a seed. It is well known that once the outer shell is broken the coconut which consists of the inner shell cannot be sown and will not germinate. Further, even the entire coconut with the outer shell, we understand, will not be useful for sowing, if it is pluced before it completely ripens, though in such a stage it may still be capable of producing oil after drying out the water inside. If therefore, such a narrow construction is given, a large category of coconuts except those which contain the entire shell and are fit for bemg sown and germinating into a plant will not be seeds and therefore they will not be oil seeds within the meaning of sec. 14 (vi ). We are not prepared to adopt such a construction to the expression "oil seed " We therefore hold that copra is an oil seed within the meaning ot sec. 14 (vi) of the Central Sales Tax act and hence the explanation to schedule by which copra is included in the expression coconut which forms item 5 of schedule III is not inconsistent with sec. 6 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales tax Act or Sec i4 (vi) of the Central sales Tax Act

( 10 ) SRI Venkatappaiah Sastry, the learned Government Pleader contended chat even assuming that copra is not an oil seed, there is nothing preventing State legislature from providing that tax may be levied on this commodity at any point of its sale or purchase. He submitted that no doubt under sec 14 read with sec, 15 of the CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT, 1956, in the case of declared goods, tax shall not be levied at more than one stage of sale or purchase and shad not exceed 3% of the sale or purchase thereof. But this does not prevent the State from providing for levy of tax at a single point in respect of goods other than declared goods. The legislature is entitled to pass a legislation with respect to tax on sale or purchase of goods, under entry 54 list II, schedule VII of the Constitution. In making such a legislation it is open to the State Legislature to provide that tax may be levied at more than one point or at any particular point of sale or purchase in respect of any goods. It was therefore open to the State legislature to provide for levy of tax at a single point, namely, point of last purchase with respect to goods other than declared goods. Hence, It is not necessary that schedule III should constitute only of declared goods. It is strictly unnecessary to go into this question In view of our conclusion that copra is not an oil seed and therefore comes within the definition of declared goods and was properly included In schedule III, but we see no substance in that contention in view of clear terms of sec. 6. It is no doubt true that the state Legislature can provide for taxation at a tingle point of purchase even in respect of goods other than declared goods. But a reading of sec. 6 shows that it has not done so. The heading of section 6 is "tax in respect of declared goods". Section 6 says that the said or purchase of declared goods by a dealer shall be liable to tax at the rate, and only at the point of sale or purchase specified against each in the third schedule on his turnover of such sales or purchases. Thus, section 6 expressly deals only with the sales or purchase of declared goods, declared goods being goods which satisfy the definition of sec. 2 (f) of the Act which in turn refers to the provisions of section. 14 of the CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT, 1956. Thus, It is clear thac the legislature by enacting sec. 6 sought to deal only with declared goods which are set out in detail In the third schedule. It therfore, follows that the Items mentioned in schedule Ml should satisfy the definition of declared goods .

( 11 ) IT was further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even assuming that copra is an oil seed and was properly included in schedule III by reason of the explanation, still no tax could be levied on the purchase in question by reason of Act 12 of 1971. Under that Act, the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was amended. Section 6 deals with the amendment of the third schedule and the relevant portion of sec. 6 is as follows: in third schedule to the principal Act, (a) in Item 5, for the entry in column (I) entry coconuts of all varieties shall be substituted. (b) after item 5, the following items and the entries relating thereto shall be Inserted, namely.