Applying the Common Parlance Test, Court Holds Preserved and Canned Fruit Products Fall Outside ‘Fresh Fruits’ Exemption
Meetu Kumari | Dec 6, 2025 |
Bombay HC: Canned Pineapple Slices Can’t Claim Fresh Fruit Exemption Under Sales Tax Law
The assessee, Sudha Instant Soft Drinks and Essences, was engaged in manufacturing juices, soft drinks, essences, and various processed food items. During the assessment for 1991-92, exemption benefits available to the unit under the 1979 Incentive Scheme were denied for several processed items because they were not explicitly included within the eligible class of goods. The assessee argued that canned and preserved pineapple products should still qualify as “fresh fruits,” thereby attracting NIL tax.
The Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal accepted the assessee’s position and concluded that pineapple slices in sealed cans do not lose their essential character as fruit and thus fall under Entry A-23. Aggrieved, the Commissioner of Sales Tax sought reference under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Main Issue: Whether canned and preserved products like pineapple slices, tidbits, and fruit cocktail sealed in syrup qualify as “fresh fruits” under Entry A-23 of Schedule A, thereby attracting NIL sales tax, or whether they fall outside the exemption.
HC’s Verdict: The High Court rejected the Tribunal’s interpretation and held unequivocally that canned and preserved pineapple products cannot be treated as “fresh fruits” for Entry A-23. Applying the common parlance test, the Court noted that “fresh fruits” refer to perishable produce, sold in their natural state, not fruits processed, preserved in sugar syrup, or vacuum-sealed for long shelf life.
The Court said that the legislation’s intent to use the word “fresh” was deliberate and must not be rendered meaningless. Had the intention been to cover all fruit forms, i.e., fresh, canned, preserved, and frozen, the entry would simply have used the term “fruits.” The existence of separate entries for preserved foods in the Sales Tax Schedule further reinforced the distinction. The Court distinguished the Sterling Foods and Thillai Chidambara Nadar decision as it involved different statutory contexts and not a specific entry restricted by the word “fresh.” Thus, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s decision and held that the products in question do not fall within Entry A-23.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below
In case of any Doubt regarding Membership you can mail us at [email protected]
Join Studycafe's WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for Latest Updates on Government Job, Sarkari Naukri, Private Jobs, Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!"
