1986 (2) TMI 309 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court rules on classification of eggs and poultry under tax law. Petitions dismissed.

Shri Nalini Ranjan Sirkar Versus The Superintendent of Taxes, Dibrugarh and Others

Shri Nalini Ranjan Sirkar Versus The Superintendent of Taxes, Dibrugarh and Others - [1986] 62 STC 21 (Gau) Issues Involved:1. Whether eggs, live poultry, and dressed poultry are considered 'meat' under item 11 of Schedule III of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947.2. Whether the High Court is competent to entertain the application under Article 226 of the Constitution.3. Contentions of the parties regarding the interpretation of 'meat.'Detailed Analysis:1. Whether eggs, live poultry, and dressed poultry are considered 'meat' under item 11 of Schedule III of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947:A. Eggs as Meat:The court held that eggs are not considered 'meat' within the meaning of item 11 of Schedule III. An egg is a spheroidal body produced by a female bird, reptile, or insect containing the germ of a new individual, especially that of domestic fowl for eating. In common parlance or popular sense in Assam or India, eggs are never considered flesh. The court emphasized that eggs do not contain any flesh, and it goes against common sense and logic to conclude that an egg should be treated as flesh because it might turn into a bird, reptile, or insect in due course. The essential attribute of meat is absent in eggs, and there is no material to show that in common parlance, eggs are understood as flesh or meat.B. Live Poultry as Meat:The court determined that live poultry is not considered 'meat.' When live birds are sold and purchased, they are purchased as 'live birds,' and the sale of flesh does not arise. The sale of live poultry being the sale of birds and not flesh or meat cannot attract item 11. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Daffadar Bhagat Singh & Sons v. Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner, which held that the sale of live animals or 'meat on hoof' is not the sale of 'meat.' The court concluded that the sale or purchase of live birds or live poultry did not attract item 11.C. Dressed Poultry as Meat:The court held that dressed poultry, i.e., flesh of domestic fowls like hens and ducks, is not exempt from taxation under item 11. The term 'meat' in its natural, ordinary, or popular sense means the flesh of animals as opposed to fish or poultry. The court emphasized that the words 'meat,' 'eggs,' and 'poultry' are edibles of everyday use, and reference to dictionaries is essential to grasp the meaning of the words. The court found that the current meaning of the word 'meat' in modern English excludes the flesh of fish and poultry. The court also noted that the legislature's use of distinct items 'meat,' 'fish,' 'eggs,' and 'poultry' indicates that the term 'meat' was used in its ordinary sense, excluding fish and poultry.2. Whether the High Court is competent to entertain the application under Article 226 of the Constitution:The court held that the High Court is competent to entertain the application under Article 226 of the Constitution and decide whether a particular commodity is subject to tax or covered by exemption. The court cited several Supreme Court decisions, including State of U.P. v. Indian Hume Pipe Company, Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. State of Bihar, and India Carbon Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes, which established that the High Court can determine these questions in writ applications.3. Contentions of the parties regarding the interpretation of 'meat':Petitioner's Contentions:The petitioner contended that eggs and poultry, whether dressed or live, are 'meat' and fall under item 11 of Schedule III. The petitioner argued that the term 'meat' means flesh of animals and birds and claimed that the articles are 'meat.' The petitioner further claimed that the authorities acted without jurisdiction and made him liable on a clear misconstruction of the term 'meat.'Respondents' Contentions:The respondents argued that the term 'meat' specifically excludes poultry according to all standard English dictionaries. They contended that no foundation was laid by the petitioner to support the contention that in common parlance or popular sense, eatables 'poultry' and 'egg' fall within the meaning of the term 'meat.' The respondents also referred to dictionary meanings and decisions of the High Courts of Bombay and Calcutta, which held that dressed poultry falls under the edible termed as 'meat.'Conclusion:The court concluded that eggs, live poultry, and dressed poultry are not 'meat' within the meaning of item 11 of Schedule III of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947. The petitions were dismissed, and the court made no order as to costs. The records of Appeals Nos. 34 STA/69 and 35 STA/69 were sent to the Superintendent of Taxes to examine the question referred to him by the appellate authority.