Strict construction of sales tax exemptions defeats claims for milk and dressed chicken turnover under the notification.

Exemption from sales tax on fresh milk, curds and buttermilk was confined to dealers exclusively dealing in those goods, and the Court applied strict construction of the exemption notification; the assessee failed because it was not shown to meet that exclusive-dealing condition. Exemption for dressed chicken as meat was also denied because the record did not show that it fell within the exempt forms of meat, namely canned, preserved, dried or dehydrated goods, and the claim had not been raised in the original return. The tax revision therefore failed, with both turnovers held ineligible for exemption.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether fresh milk, curds and buttermilk were exempt from sales tax when the dealer was not dealing exclusively in those goods; (ii) Whether the sale of dressed chicken was entitled to exemption as meat.

Issue (i): Whether fresh milk, curds and buttermilk were exempt from sales tax when the dealer was not dealing exclusively in those goods.

Analysis: The exemption under the Government Order applied to fresh milk, curds and buttermilk only when sold by dealers exclusively dealing in them. The qualifying words were inserted to limit the exemption, and the language of the notification did not support extending the benefit merely because the dealer also dealt in other exempt commodities. Exemption provisions in a taxing statute must be strictly construed according to their plain wording.

Conclusion: The claim to exemption on the sales of fresh milk failed and was rightly rejected, being against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the sale of dressed chicken was entitled to exemption as meat.

Analysis: The record contained no evidence that the dressed chicken was canned, preserved, dried or dehydrated, which were the forms in which meat was exempt. The claim was also not made in the original return and was raised only later, so the item did not merit acceptance on the material before the Court.

Conclusion: The exemption claim for dressed chicken was rejected, being against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The tax revision failed because neither the milk turnover nor the dressed chicken turnover qualified for exemption under the relevant Government Order.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption from tax must be confined to the exact terms of the granting instrument, and a dealer cannot claim the benefit unless the statutory or notified condition of exclusive dealing is strictly satisfied.

---