Supreme Court of India
CHIRANJIT LAL ANANDversusSTATE OF ASSAM & ANR.
- Citation
- 1985 INSC 165
- Decided
- 2 August 1985
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- V D TULZAPURKAR
Holding
The Supreme Court held that 'meat on hoof' is to be understood as meat for ration, falling within the exemption for 'meat' in Schedule III, Item 11, and therefore the sales‑tax assessment was invalid.
Summary
The appellant, a supplier of rations to the Central Reserve Police Units in Assam, was assessed sales tax for supplying "meat on hoof" under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947. He contended that "meat on hoof" was merely a term used by the military for live goats intended to be slaughtered for meat, and therefore fell within the exemption for "meat" listed in Schedule III, Item 11. The High Court held that "meat on hoof" meant live animals and was taxable. The Supreme Court, applying the rule that statutory terms in revenue statutes are to be given their popular commercial meaning where not defined, concluded that the phrase was understood by the parties as meat to be supplied for ration, not as live animals, and thus attracted the exemption. Consequently, the assessment and demand notice were set aside. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the expression 'meat on hoof' under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 refers to live animals or to meat intended for consumption.
- Whether 'meat on hoof' is covered by the exemption for 'meat' in Schedule III, Item 11 of the Act.
- Whether the sale of 'meat on hoof' constitutes a taxable sale of goods under Section 2(4) of the Act.
- Whether entry 48 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935 limits the tax to goods and not animals.
Legislation cited
- Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947s. 2(4), s. 3, s. 6(2), s. 7, s. Schedule III Item 11
- Government of India Act, 1935s. Seventh Schedule List II Entry 48
Subjects
sales taxexemptioninterpretation of statutesmeat on hoofgoods definitionAssam Sales Tax Actpopular meaningtax assessment
Judgment
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 c
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 D
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 E
was for meat, and that i t 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' F
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 G
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. H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP;2 s.c.R.
A 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
B 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
c 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
D 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,
E
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 •·
F
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.
G
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.
H
Miss Halida Khatoon for the Respondent.
C.L.ANAND v. STATE (SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.] 387
The Judgment of the. Court was delivered by A
SABYASACl!I lllJKIIARJI, J, These appeals are by special leave
from a decision of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court
in respect of assessment made under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The appellant was
carrying on supply business of various items of ration to the B
Central Reserve Police Units within the State of Assam for a
number of years. In response to a tender notice issued by the
Superintendent of Police, Jorhat, the appellant had submitted a
tender to supply various items of ration in Army Scale including
'Meat on hoof', 'Meat on hoof' is described in the tender notice
~w~ c
"5! d) Contractor shall be bound to supply different
varieties of Meat on hoof as per following ratio of
the monthly requirement :
Khasi - 50% D
He Goat - 30%
Sheep(Ram)- 20%
The Khasi and Ram to be supplied for the purpose of
meat must not be over 5 years or below two years of
age and He goat rm.ist not be over one year or below six
months of age." E
The tender notice also indicated that all contracts would be
on schedule rates per 100 K.G. net. The tender of the appellant
was accepted and an agreement was made on 1st April, 1965 between
the appellant and the Superintendent of Police.
F
According to the appellant, in his application under Article
226 of the Constitution to the High Court, 'meat on hoof' is a
peculiar abbreviation used mainly by the Military which is
nothing but a live goat. It was stated that it was a device to
satisfy certain religious sentiments of the people in the
Military that the aforesaid phrase had been used. The appellant G
had further alleged in his petition that the sole purpose for
which the meat on hoof was supplied was for meat and that was the
consideration for which the price was fixed. It was further
stated that it was a device to satisfy certain religious senti-
ments of the people in the Mill tary that the aforesaid device was
fixed. H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.
consideration for which the price was fixed. It was further
A
stated that it was a device to satisfy certain religious senti-
ments of the people in the Military that the aforesaid device was
fixed.
Reliance was placed before the High Court on a Notification
dated 11th October, '1967 in the Assam Gazette with regard to the
B scale of meat, though it was alleged that in actual practice live
animals were being supplied for the purpose of meat. The scale is
indicated,in the Assam Gazette - paragarah 14(a) and (b) which is
as follows
"'14(a) The scale of meat for Assam Rifles is for
dressed meat. In actual practice live animals
c ' '
(Chicken in the case of hospital supplier) will be
supplied for the purpose of meat. Live animals/
chickens after production and having been passed by
the Ration committee may in certain supply points/
stations be required to be slaughtered under customary
rights prevalent in the unit by the contractor at his
own expense and agreements. After the carcass has been
D dressed and wiped down it will be hung for 3 to 6
hours according to the season of set. Then dressed out
meat will be duly weighed and,supplied to the supply
points/stations as per demand.
(b) In case of OPs which are dependent on Bn.HQ/Wing
E HQ/sub-wing HQ for the purpose of supply, contractor
will have to supply live animals for the purpose of
meat and half the weight of such live animals, i.e. 50
per cent only will be taken as equal to that of
dressed meat."
F The appellant in response to a notice under the Sales-Tax
Act originally did not file any return. , Thereafter assessment
was made under Section 19 of the said Act for the period ending
30th September, 1965. Application under Article 226 of the
Constitution .was made to the High Court to quash the said order
of assessment and the notice of Demand dated 23rd May, 1969 in
pursuance of the assessment order.
It was the contention of the appellant that 'meat' is exemp-
ted from sales-tax as appearing at Serial No. 11 of Schedule lll
to the Act and since 'meat on hoof' was noting but 'meat', the
assessment in this case under the said Act was unauthorised and
Ii invalid. Section 2(4) of the said Act defines goods as follows :
C.L.ANAND v. STATE [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.] 389
"2( 4) "goods" means all kinds of movable property A
other than newspapers, actionable. claims, stocks,
shares or securities, and includes all materials,
articles and commodities, whether or not to be used
for the pnrposes referred to in sub-clauses (a) and
.(b) of Clause (2)."
B
Section 3 imposes liability to tax and provides that every
dealer whose gross turnover of ·sales exceeded the taxable quantum
as fixed in the Act shall be liable to pay tax under the Act. We
need not deal with the provision in detail. Reliance was; how-
ever, placed on Section 6(2) which provides that th.e provisions
of the said Act shall not apply to the sale of goods specially . C
exempted under the' provisions of the said Act.
Schedule III of the said Act deals with goods exempted under
Section 7 of the Said Act. Section 7 of the Said Act provides
that subject to the conditions and exemptions, if any, set out in
Schedule III to the said Act, the sales of goods specified D
therein shall be exempted from taxation under the said Act. Item
11 of Schedule III to the said act reads as follows
Sl. No. Description. Conditions and except
subject to which
exemption has been E
allowed.
xxxxxx
xxxxxx F
11. Fish, Ghee (But notvegetable ghee), Except when sold in
Dahi, Butter, Cream, Ceasin, Meat sealed containers.
and Vegetables (but not Onion,
Garlic Spices and Condiments.)
G
It was also submitted on behalf of the appellant 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. Thirdly and lastly it was
urged before the High Court truit entry 48 of Lfst II of the ·
Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935 under which H
the said Act was passed, the tax was on "sale of gc>Ods and on
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) SUPP;2 s.c.R.
A advertisements" and not on "animals". The High Court held that it
was clear that the above item 11 listed the particular goods
exempted under Section 7 of the Said Act and the conditions and
exceptions subject to which exemptions were allowed appear to -be
"except when sold in sealed containers". The exception specified
in the item also clearly pointed to "meat" being "dressed meat"
B and· not "meat on hoof" which was really the sale of the animal.
According to the High Court, '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 interpret the exempted item in the
Schedule with reference to what the parties understood at the
time of the contract. Apart from that, the High Court was of the
view that the particular item in the tender and the agreement
C between the parties was not capable of the meaning suggested on
behalf of the appellant.
For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the fact that in
the opinion of the High Court 'meat on hoof' was live animal, and
that the sale of animal is ~ale of goods under the said Act, it
dismissed the application under Article 226 of the Constitution.
D These appeals have been preferred from the said decision of the
High Court after obtaining special leave from this Court.
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 di verse products, articles
E and substances, resort should be had not to the scientific and
technical meaning of the terms or expressions used but to their
popular meaning i.e. the meaning attached t:o them by those
dealfng in them. (emphasis supplied) If any term or expression
has been defined in the enactment then it 1111st be understood in
the sense in which it is defined. But in the absence of any
F definition being given in the enactment, the meaning of the term
in common parlance or connnercial parlance has to be adopted. See
the observations of this Court in Indo International Indostries
v. c.-issiooer of Sales T8lC, Uttar Ptadesh [1981] 3 s.c.R. 294,
and also in the case of His Majesty the King v. Planters Nut and
Chocolate Company Limited [1951] C.L.R. (ex.) 122, (Which deci-
G sion was approved by this Court in Connissiooer of Sales Tax,
Madhya ptadpsh v. Jaswant Singh a.aran Singh) [1967] 2 s.c.R.
720.
In the context of transactions with the Central Reserve
Police Force posted North Eastern Region, the question,
H therefore, is how is the expression 'meat on hoof' understood by
persons who dealt in them.
C.L.ANAND v. STATE [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.] 391
Identical expression 'meat on hoof' came up for considera- A
tion in the case of Doffadar Bhagat Singh & Sons v. Joint Excise
and Tamtion Qnnissioner, Punjab, Patiala and Another 37 S.T.C.
527. There the appellants were a firm of army . contractors and
they were registered as a dealer under the Punjab General Sales
TAx Act, 1948, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Under the
. contract between the appellants and the army authorities, the B
appellants had to supply, among other things, "meat" and "meat on
hoof". Under Section 6 read with entry 18 of Schedule B to the
Punjab Act no tax was payable on the sale of meat, fish and eggs
except when sold in tins, bottles or cartons. The question that
arose in that case was whether "meat on hoof" was taxable under
the Punjab Act. The High Court was of the view that "meat on C
hoof" was taxable inasmuch as "meat on hoof was preserved mea.t,
the preservation being the natural carton consisting of the skin
of the animal". On appeal, this Court observed that the skin
covering the flesh of the animal preserved its life; to think
that the skin was a carton for the flesh, which could be used for
food after the animal was slaughtered, was against commonsense. D·
This Court further observed whether what was sold by the
appellants in that case to the army authorities as meat on hoof
was really meat or live animals would depend on a correct reading
of the contract between the parties, and sinCe all the terms of
the contract were not before the,court, the matter was remanded.
We have already noticed the relevant clause in the tender, E
the appropriate term in the contract, the extract from the Assam
Gazette and the purpose for which the meat was being purchased.
Furthermore 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 exp1anation has been F
given as to why instead of meat (flesh of the goat) 'meat on
hoof' was asked to be supplied. The abundant and undisputed
evidence on record about the purpose of the supply and the
position that 'meat on hoof' becomes meat proper as soon as the
goat is slaughtered and the skin is pulled off,. leaves no doubt
in our mind that the assessee had advanced ·a tenable claim. G
In' the Oxford English Dictionary, 1933 Edn. Volume V, page
372, one of the meanings of the 'hoof' mentioned is as follows:
"The massive horny growth which sheathes the ends of
the digits or in cases the foot of quadrupeds .forming H
392 SUPREME COURT REPOlllS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.
A the order Ungulata, primarily that of the horse and
other equine animals : It corresponds to the nails or
claws of other quadrupeds."
In Collins English Dictionary at page 705 'hoof' is defined
as under:
ll
"La. the horny covering of the end of the food in the
horse, deer, and all other ungulate 11181111lals.
b. (in combination) : a hoofbeat. Related adj.:
ungular. 2. the food of an ungulate mamnal. 3. a
hoofed animal. 4. Facetious. a persons's foot. 5. On
the hoof. (of livestock) alive -vb. 6. (tr.) to kick
c or trample with the hoofs. 7. hoof it, Slang. a. to
walk. b. (intr.) to dance. (Old English hof; related
to Old Norse Hofr, Old High German huof (Gernman Huf),
Sanskrit saphas)."
In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 3rd Edn. Vol.2 page 1333
'hoofs' is mentioned in respect of 'Fertilisers and Feeding
Stuffs Act, 1926.
D
In any event, as mentioned hereinbefore 'meat on hoof' as
such is not defined in the said Act. It must be. understood in the
context of the pei:sons who were dealing in 'meat on hoof' • Meat is
exempted under the said Act· 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, we are of the opinion that the High
Court was in error in holding that the transactions in question
were subject to sales tax.
In the premises these appeals 1111st be allowed and the
appellant is entitled to succeed in his application under Article
F
226 of the Constitution. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned·
order of assessment is hereby set aside along with the notice of
demand dated 23rd May, 1969. The appellant is entitled to costs
of these appeals.
M.L.A. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "sales tax"Sign in to search