Coconut Trading Co. & Ors Vs. Municipal Corporation
of The City of Ahmedabad & Ors  INSC 369 (27 November 1990)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Kuldip Singh (J)
1991 AIR 494 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 392 1992 SCC Supl. (1) 298 JT 1991 (1) 234 1990
Municipal Corporation Act/Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Rules--Rule 4 Item
Nos. 10, 11 and 55--Watery coconut (brown coconut)--Eligibility to octroi.
appellants import and sell the brown coconut (watery coconut) from the States
of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnata- ka and Tamil Nadu and sell the same in the
city of Ahmedabad as their trading activity. Under
the Municipal Corporation rules, whenever goods are carried into or out of the octroi
limits of the Municipal Corporation, the articles specified under the rules are
liable to octroi, except of course those exempted under Item 10 of Rule 4. The
respondents levied octroi on brown coconuts at the rate of Rs.1 per 100 kgm. at
the point of import into the octroi limits of the Respond- ent's corporation.
The rate was later enhanced to Rs.5 per 100 kg. The appellants challenged the
levy of octroi on brown coconuts by means of filling a writ petition contending
that brown coconuts are green fruits within the meaning of item 10 of rule 4 of
the Rules and therefore, they are exempted articles, not exigible to octroi.
The High Court rejected the writ petition. Hence this appeal, by special leave.
the appeal, this Court,
The watery coconut (brown coconut) is not a green fruit but is a separate
entity by itself. it cannot also be considered to be a dry fruit within the
meaning of entry 11 of Rule 4. Dried fruit is distinct from the coconut. There-
fore, the watery coconut (brown coconut) does not fall within the meaning of
item 13B of Rule 4. of the Rules also.
articles or goods which are not specified elsewhere in the schedule or in the
list of exempted articles or goods would fall under item 55 of Rule 14. Brown
coconut is not an exempted article among the list of articles in item 10 of
Rule, namely, green fruit Brown coconut (watery coconut) would fall within item
55 of Rule 14 of the Rules and is exigible to octroi. [397D-E] 393 Ramavtar Budhaiprasad
v. Asstt. Sales Tax Officer, Akola, 
12 STC 286; Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.v.S.N. Brothers,  31 STC 302;
P.S. Thillai Chidam- bara Nadar v. Addl. Appellate Asstt. Corotar., Madurai and Anr.,  60 STC 80; Sri
Krishna Coconut Co. v. Commer- cial Tax Officer, Amalapuram,  16 STC 511;
Kunchi Rajeshwara Sastry and Sons and Anr. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes, Kakinada and Ors.,  37 STC 399; Sri Lakshmi
Coconut Industries v. The State of Karnataka and Anr.,  46 STC 404; Deputy Commissioner of Agrl. Income ï7 3
and Commissioner of Sales-tax v. Ram Kumar Nand Kumar,  31 STC 321,