In Re: State of Madras

Rajagopalan, J.—These are petitions presented by the State u/s 12-B of the Madras General Sales-tax Act against the decision of the

appellate tribunal which held that the arecanut sold by the assessee, all of whom belonged to the South Kanara District, was a horticultural produce

within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act.

In our judgment in T.R.C. No. 22 of 1955 State of Madras v. Saravana Pillai (1956) 2 M.L.J. 10, which has just been delivered, we pointed

out the difference in the process adopted by the horticulturists of South Kanara District and those of Coimbatore District in preparing the arecanuts

for sale. The process adopted by the horticulturists of South Kanara involves much less than that adopted by those of Coimbatore District State of

Madras v. Saravana Pillai (1956) 2 M.L.J. 10 was concerned with the processing to which the horticulturists of Coimbatore subjected the

arecanuts. All that is done in South Kanara is to gather the arecanut, peel and dry the kernel before it is sold. That cannot result in what is sold

ceasing to be horticultural produce within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act. These petitions are dismissed.