LexDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX ETC.ETC. versus A. B. ISMAIL ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
522
DEPUTY <XlltilSSI<llER OF SALES TAX ETC. ETC.
v.
A. B. ISMAIL ETC. ETC.
APRIL 15, 1986
[P.N. BHAGWATI, C.J., V. KHALID AND G.L. OZA, JJ,]
Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 : s. 5-A(l)(a) ~ •
Mutton produced after slaughtering goats and sheeps - Whether
'other goods' assessable to tax.
Words and Phrases
Meaning of.
"Goat and Sheep" and ''Mutton" -
~.
Section 5-A(l )(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act ';f
1963 provides for levy of purchase tax on the purchase
turnover of a dealer who in the course
of
his
business
purchases goods, the sale or purchase of which is liable to
tax under that Act, in circumstances in which no tax is
payable under s.5 and then consumes such goods in the msnu-
facture of other goods for sale or otherwise.
The respondents purchase goats and sheep for slaughter-~
ing them and then sell the meat they get after such slaughter.
They were assessed by the assessing officer to sales tax on
their purchase turnover of goats and sheep under s. 5-A (l)(a)
•
on the assumption that they converted the animsls into meat by
the msnufacturing process of slaughtering. The
Appellate~
Officer and the Tribunsl agreed with the assessing officer.
The High Court, however, quashed the assessment orders holding -(-
that the meat got after slaughtering the animsls was not
'other goods' within the meaning of the section.
In these appeals by certificate by the Department it was
contended for the respondents that they were only processing
live goat and sheep into lllltton by killing them and cutting
them into pieces and that in this process there was neither
consumption nor a msnufacture, nor production of 'other ..
goods'.
._
Allowing the appeals, the Court,
DY. COMMNR. OF s.r. v. A.B. ISMAIL
523
-.,i
HELD : 1. The three ingredients of s. 5-A( 1 )(a) of the
Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 are : (i) consumption of
the goods; (ii) process of manufacture involved, and (iii)
production of other goods distinct from the original goods.
(525 B]
2. When goats and sheep are converted into meat, "other
goods" within the meaning of s. 5-A(l }(a) of the Act came into
• I-being, in as ID.lch as the slaughter of the animals and their
conversion into meat is the consequence of consumption of
goats and sheeps, wherein a process of manufacture can also be
inferred. (525 F-G]
)-_
3. Both in commercial circles and in common parlance
"goats and sheep" and 111D.ltton" are two different things having
A
B
c
Ya distinct individuality of their own, one different from the
other, for when goats and sheep undergo the process of
slaughtering, meat, hides and skins -
something entirely
different from the original goods, are produced by consuming
D
the animals in the said process. (525 E; 527 F]
-
In the instant case the High Court was in error in
holding that "goods" and "meat" were the same and that no
~onsumption was
involved in converting goats into meat.
(529 E-F]
E
L Cbeyyabba v. State of Kamatata, (1980] 45 s.r.c. 1,
approved.
Amar Khan Mahboob v. State of Bombay, [ 1960] 1 S. T. C.
-)' 698, referred to.
Deputy Coml..ssioner, Sales-tax (Law) Board of Revenue
{Tues) Ernalmla• v. Pio Food Packers, [1980] 3 S.C.R. 1271
and Chiranjit Lal Anand v. State of Assam and Anr., [1985]
A.I,R. s.c. 1387, distinguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 1161 of
,_,1979 etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.6,1978 of the
Kerala High Court in T.R.C. 130 of 1977.
K.M.K. Nair for the Appellants,
F
G
H
524
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1986] 2 S.C.R.
A
N. Veerappa, V.J. Francis and s. Balakrishnan for the l_.
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHALID, J. The short question that falls to be decided
B
in these appeals, by certificate, against the Judgment of a
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, is whether goat and
sheep and the meat got after slaughtering them are the same ... •
for the purpose of sales-tax in the State. The High Court,
disagreeing with the Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal held tnem to
c
be the same goods.
2. It is the admitted case in these appeals that the{
respondents purchase goat and sheep for slaughtering them and
then sell the meat they get after such slaughter. It is also'1
admitted that live stock will be goods within the meaning of
the Kera la General Sales-tax Act (the Act for short). The
o
respondents submitted nil returns claiming exemption on the
sales turnoveExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.