TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses challenge on sales tax for live animals under Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947.</h1> <h3>Chiranjitlal Anand Versus The State of Assam and Another</h3> Chiranjitlal Anand Versus The State of Assam and Another - [1975] 35 STC 442 (Gau) Issues:Challenge against assessment order under Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 and notice of demand. Interpretation of 'meat on hoof' in a supply contract. Exemption of 'meat' from sales tax. Definition of 'goods' under the Act. Validity of sales tax on animals.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an application under Article 226 challenging an assessment order and notice of demand under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947. The petitioner, engaged in supplying ration items to Central Reserve Police units, submitted a tender to supply 'meat on hoof' as per a specific ratio. The petitioner contended that 'meat on hoof' is essentially live animals meant for meat consumption. The first argument raised was the exemption of 'meat' from sales tax under Schedule III, which the petitioner claimed should apply to 'meat on hoof.' However, the court held that the exemption for 'meat' referred to dressed meat, not live animals. Private agreements between parties cannot alter statutory interpretations, and the notification cited by the petitioner was deemed irrelevant to the case.The second argument focused on whether 'meat on hoof' falls under the definition of 'goods' as per the Act. The court analyzed the definition of 'goods' under section 2(4) of the Act, which includes all movable property except specific exclusions. The court referred to the Assam General Clauses Act to define 'movable property,' concluding that animals are indeed movable property and thus fall under the definition of 'goods.' Therefore, the sale of animals is considered a sale of goods under the Act, rejecting the petitioner's argument to the contrary.Lastly, the petitioner argued that since the tax under the Act was on the sale of goods and advertisements, it should not apply to the sale of animals. However, the court's previous determination that animals constitute goods under the Act rendered this argument ineffective. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, upholding the assessment order and notice of demand. The judgment was a unanimous decision by the judges, resulting in the dismissal of the application without costs.
TaxTMI 