JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - Petitioner in both the writ petitions is a partner of the firm Shri Jai Shankar Cashew Manufacturing Company in Andhra Pradesh which carries on business in manufacturing raw cashew-nut and selling the same inside India and exporting abroad. For the purpose of manufacturing, the Petitioner purchases raw cashew-out from different places in India and from the Soil Conservation Department of the Government of Orissa. The Petitioner was paying Central Sales-Tax on such purchase at the rate of 3% but subsequently it was increased to 5%. Therefore, the Petitioner challenges the levy of sales-tax on cashew-nut. 2. The contention of the Petitioner is that no sales-tax can be levied on cashew-nut as the Soil Conservation Department is not a "Dealer" as defined in the Orissa Sales-tax Act and the Petitioner being a manufacturer and exporter of cashew-nut is not liable to pay Sales-tax. It is contended on behalf of the State that cashew-nut is exigible to sale-tax. There has been a sale inside the State of Orissa and that the Soil Conservation Department comes within the definition of "Dealer". 3. O.J.C. No. 508/77 relates to the assessment year 1973-74 and O.J.C. No. 509/77 relates to the assessment year 1971-72. Admittedly, the Petitioner purchases cashew-nut in Orissa. From the annexures filed by the Petitioner, it is abundantly clear that the sales were complete inside Orissa and the Petitioner was to take delivery of the goods after sale from inside Orissa. As the sales are complete inside Orissa, the Petitioner is liable to pay Sales-tax. 4. The next limb of argument of the Petitioner is that opposite party No. 2 does not come within the definition of "Dealer" under the Orissa Sales-tax Act and opposite party No. 2 also does not carryon business of sale and purchase of cashew-nut. In this connection, reliance is placed by the Petitioner on Straw Products Limited v. State of Orissa and Ors. 1977 (1) C.W.R. 455 , wherein it has been held that a person cannot be said to be a "Dealer" under the provisions of the Orissa Sales-tax Act, if he does not carryon business of sale and purchase. This argument has no force in view of the Orissa Sales-Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1979, (Orissa Act 24 of 1979). 1977 (1) C.W.R. 455 , wherein it has been held that a person cannot be said to be a "Dealer" under the provisions of the Orissa Sales-tax Act, if he does not carryon business of sale and purchase. This argument has no force in view of the Orissa Sales-Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1979, (Orissa Act 24 of 1979). The definition of "Dealer" has been changed and in Explanation II to Section 2 of the Amendment Act, it is provided that the Central Government or a State Government or any of their employees acting in official capacity on behalf of such Government, who whether or not in the course of business, purchases, sells, supplies or distributes goods, directly or otherwise for cash or for deferred payment or for commission, remuneration or for other valuable consideration, shall, except in relation to any sale, supply or distribution of surplus unserviceable or old stores or materials or waste products or obsolete or discarded machinery or parts or accessories thereof, be deemed to be a dealer for the purposes of this Act. In Section 3 at the Amendment Act, a non-obstante clause has been provided validating imposition of taxes prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. In view of the aforesaid amended provision of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, opposite party No. 1 squarely comes within the definition of "Dealer" under the Act. It is also well known that the policy of the Government of India is for production of cashew-nut and sale of the same through Government agency. The State Government also arranges the production of cashew-nut and sale of the same to different purchasers and every year such sales take place. It cannot be said that it is a casual sale by the State Government. The Department of Horticulture as well as other Departments of Government are in charge of production and sale of cashew-nut. In consideration of this position also the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted. It is asserted that cashew-nut comes under the definition of "Fruit" as given in item No. 30 of Appendix-D to the Sales Tax Act. Appendix-D relates to items which are exempted from sales-tax according to the provision of Section 6 of the Act, in item No. 30, all fruits are exempted from Sales-tax exciting those which have been canned, preserved, dried or dehydrated. Appendix-D relates to items which are exempted from sales-tax according to the provision of Section 6 of the Act, in item No. 30, all fruits are exempted from Sales-tax exciting those which have been canned, preserved, dried or dehydrated. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that cashew-nut should come under the category of "Fruit" and as such it is not exigible to sales-tax. It is a common knowledge that cashew-nut is not attached to Cashew-apple. One characteristic of fruit is that it is perishable. Cashew-apple is undoubtedly perishable; whereas the nut is not perishable. 5. u/s 6 of the Act, all articles are exigible to sales-tax, excepting those enumerated in Section 6 of the Act which are exempted from tax. It is well settled that if one item of goods is not found in the list of goods exempted, the theory of consideration in common parlance is to be applied. In other words, it is to be considered whether in a popular sense a particular goods comes under a particular category. 6. In Webstar's New International Dictionary, "nut" has been described as a hard shelled dry fruit or seed having a more or less distinct separable rind or shell and interior kernel or meat. Also the kernel or meat itself, loosely used, and including many kinds, as almonds, peanuts, brazil nuts etc., not botanically true nuts. In Vol. II of Encyclopaedia Britannica (1973-74) Edition, cashew-nut and peanut have been classified in the same category. A similar question was considered 10 the case of His Majesty The King v. Planters Nut and Chocolate Company Ltd. 1951 Canada Law Reports 122. In that case, the question whether cashew-nut would come under the category of fruit or vegetable was considered. The question was answered in the following way: Would a householder when asked to bring home fruit or vegetables for the evening meal bring home salted peanuts, cashew nuts or nuts of any sort? The answer is obviously "no". Ultimately, it was held in that case that as products and as general commodities in the market neither salted peanuts nor cashews, or nuts of any sort, are generally denominated or known as either fruits or vegetables. This is a direct decision on the point and it has decided the matter from various standpoints and we, accordingly, hold that cashew-nut does not come under the category of fruit in common parlance. 7. This is a direct decision on the point and it has decided the matter from various standpoints and we, accordingly, hold that cashew-nut does not come under the category of fruit in common parlance. 7. It is next contended by the Petitioner that the firm generally sells cashew-nut in different parts of India and also exports the same outside India. In view of the admitted position that the sale of cashew-nut to the Petitioner is completely inside the State of Orissa, these factors have no bearing on the contention raised by the Petitioner. As the sale is complete inside the State, the goods are exigible to tax and the Petitioner is bound to pay sales-tax. 8. It is also undisputed that when a particular item of goods does not come within the description of goods as enumerated in Appendix-C to the Orissa Sales Tax Rules relating to rate of tax, that item of goods comes under the residuary position and is exigible to sales-tax at 5%. It is also not disputed that if cashew-nut does not come under any of the Items of exemption, It will come under the residuary position and will be exigible to sales-tax at the rate of 5%. 9. On the aforesaid analysis, we hold that none of the contentions raised by the Petitioner can be sustained. 10. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. We make no order as to costs. P.K. Mohanti, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed