M/S. NOORIE MANURE MILL, SAMBHAL versus COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 893 · Decided: 15-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. NOORIE MANURE MILL, SAMBHAL 
A 
v. 
COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. 
MAY 15,2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
B 
UP. Trade Tax Act; Exemption Notifications dated 7.9.1981, 30.9.1982, 
\ 
31.1.1985 and 12.9.1986 issued thereunder: 
Horn and hoof-Exigibility to trade tax vis-a-vis exemption c 
Notifications-Held: In the absence of any definition of these terms in the 
statute, the meaning thereof as understood in common parlance for the 
purpose of imposition of tax should be assigned-Animal horn and hoof can 
not be a part of animal bone even in common parlance-High Court 
committed a serious error in opining that crushed bone would include D 
crushed horn and hoof-The matter is remitted back to tribunal for 
consideration afresh. 
The question which arose for determination in this appeal was as to 
whether animal horns and hooves could be used as crushed bone or fertilizer 
within the meaning ofvarious exemption Notifications issued by the State of E 
U.P. under the U.P. Trade Tax. 
Appellant contended that crushed horn and hoof being neither bone nor 
crushed bone, despite its mention in one of the exemption notifications, it does; 
not lose its character to be sold as fertilizer and the High Court, therefore, 
was not correct in its view. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The High Court committed a serious error in opining that 
crushed bone would also include crushed horn and hoof. It went on to hold 
that horns and hooves are considered as bone in common parlance and its G 
inclusion in the Notification 'appeared to be a clarificatory one'. In absence 
of any definition of the term in the statute, the meaning thereof as understood 
.. 
in common parlance for the purpose of imposition of tax should be assigned . 
Animal horn and hoof cannot be a part of animal bone even in common parlance. 
893 
H 
894 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 6 S.C.R. 
A Finding of the Tribunal that crushed horn and hoof are used only as manure 
cannot be agreed. No expert evidence has been obtained in that behalf. Even 
otherwise, in view of the Notification dated 12.9.1986, the said conclusion does 
not appear to be correct as combs and other articles are made out of horn. 
Hence, in the interest of justice, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal 
for consideration afresh on merits. However, it will be open to the parties to 
B adduce additional evidence before it. The direction of the Tribunal to deposit 
25% of the disputed amount of tax is also set aside. [Paras 10, 11 and 12) 
[897-B, C, D; El 
Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mis. Bharat Bones Mill, (2007) 3 Scale 
J 
C 383, referred to. 
D 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2522 of2007. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2006 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Trade Tax Revision No. 439 of 1999. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 2523 & 2524 of2007. 
Dhruv Agarwal and Praveen Kumar for the Appellant. 
Kavin Gulati, Rajeev K. Dube and Kamlendra Mishra for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. 'Hom' and 'hoof in common parlance do not come within the 
F definition of 'bone'. Horns and hooves whether can be used as fertilizer or 
crushed bone within the meaning of various notifications issued by the State 
of U.P. under the U.P. Trade Tax Act is the question involved in this case. 
3. Appellants herein are dealers in crushed bones as also crushed horn 
and hoof. It is registered under the Central Sales Tax Act as also the U.P. 
G Trade Tax Act. 
4. Horn and hoof, on the one hand, and bone or crushed bones, on the 
other, used to be treated differently by the State. In a notification issued by 
the State on or about 7.9.1981, 'bones' were subjected to sales tax at the rate 
H of 6%; the taxing event being sale to the consumer. By a notification dated 
r 
I 
NOORIE MANURE MIU., SAMBHAL v. COMMNR, TRADE TAX, U.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 895 
30.9.1982, it was declared that no tax was to be paid on sale or purchase of A 
bones but the same did not include crushed bones. The said notification 
dated 7.9.1981 was amended to include 'crushed bone' against entry No. 8 
which, as noticed hereinbefore, mentioned 'bone'. By a notification dated 
31.1.1985, however, bone including horn and hoof but not including crushed 
bones were exempted from payment of tax. We may, however, notice that yet 
again by a notification dated 12.9.1986, the following item was substituted in B 
place of the original i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.