LexCHIRANJIT LAL ANAND versus STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
385 CHIRANJIT LAL ANAND A Vo STATE OF ASSAM & ANR. AUGUST 2, 1985 [V .D. TULZAPURKAR, SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ •] B Assam Sales Tax Act 1947, Schedule III Item 11 - 'Meat', sale of - Whether includes 'meat on hoof' - Whether exempted from sales tax. Words and Phrases - 'Meat' - Whether includes 'meat on hoof' - Assam Sales Tax Act 1947, Schedule III Item 11. The appellant, who was carrying on supply business of various items of ration including 'meat on hoof' to the Central Reserve Police units, was assessed to sales tax under s.19 of Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 for the period ending 30th September 1965. He challenged before the High Court in a writ petition the order of assessment and the notice of demand dated 23rd May, 1969 on the grounds: (i) that 'meat on hoof' is a peculiar abbrevia- tion used mainly by the Military which is nothing but a live goat and the sole purpose for which the 'meat on hoof' was supplied was for meat, and that it was a device to satisfy certain religious sentiments of the people in the Military that the aforesaid phrase had been used and since 'meat' is exempted from sales-tax as appearing at Serial No. 11 of Schedule III to the Act, the assessment order was unauthorised and invalid; (ii) that goods as defined in Section 2(4) did not include 'meat on hoof' which was nothing but live animal and the provisions'of the said Act were not attracted to sale of animals, and (iii) that entry 48 of List II of the Seventh 'schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935 under which the said Act was passed, the tax was on "sale of goods and C?D advertisements" and not on ''animals". The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that 'meat' at Serial No. 11 of Schedule III to the said Act could not be equated with 'meat on hoof' and it was not possible to inte~p·cet the exempted item in the Schedule with reference to what the parties understood at the time of the contract. and since 'meat on hoof' was live animal, its sale is sale of goods under the said Act. c D E F G H A B c D E F G H 386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP;2 s.c.R. Allowing the Appeal, HELD : 1, It is well-settled that in interpreting items in statutes like the Sales Tax Acts whose primary object is to raise revenue and for which purpose they classify diverse products, articles and substances, resort sould be had not to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms or expressions used but to their popular meaning i.e. the ESDfng attached to 1:1- by t:boae dealfng in ~. (emphasis supplied). If any term of expression has been defined in the enactment then it must be understood in the sense in which it is defined. But in the absence of any definition being given in the enactment, the meaning of the term in common parlance or commercial parlance has to be adopted. [390 D-F] In the in8tant case, 'meat on hoof' is not defined in the Act, Therefore, it must be understood in the context of the persons who were dealing in 'meat on hoof'. It has been found as a fact that the 'meat on hoof' was intended for supply of ration to the personnel of the Third Battalion of the M.S.R.P;F. What was intended to be bought was undoubtedly meat for ration and a reasonable explanation has been given as to why instead of meat (flesh of the goat) 'meat on hoof' was asked to be supplied. Therefore the transactions that were between the parties were for the 'meat' in respect of which the levy of sales tax was sought to be imposed. That cannot be done. In that view of the matter, the High Court was in error in holding that the transactions in question were subject to sales tax. [390 E-F, 392 D-E, 391 E-F, 392 E] Indo International Industries V• Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Ptadesh, (1981] 3 s.c.R. 294, Bis Majesty the King •· Planters Nut and Oiocolate Co. Ltd. [1951] C.L.R. (Ex.) 122 and c.-:t.ss:looer of Sales Tu, Madhya Pkdesh •· .Jaswant Singh a.an... Singh, (1967] 2 S.C.R, 720, Daffadar Bhagat Singh & Sons Vo .Joint l!xclse and Taxstion Coamf.ssioner, l'lmjsh, P>ltiala, and .&nr., 37 S.T.C. 527,referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 1763-1766 (NT) of 1973. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.6.1973 of the Gauhati lligh Court in Civil Rules Nos. 683-686 of 1969. B.B. Ahuja and S.K. Nandy for the Appellant. Miss Halida Khatoon for the Respondent. C.L.ANAND v. STATE (SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.] 387 The Judgment o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.