Ordinary trade meaning governs sales tax exemptions: eggs and poultry were not "meat", and the exemption claim failed.

A writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable where the dispute concerned whether a commodity fell within a sales tax exemption entry and the controversy turned on the true meaning of the entry. The exemption entry had to be construed in its ordinary, natural and popular sense as understood in trade, and the assessee bore the burden of proving clear coverage. On that approach, egg, live poultry and dressed poultry were not understood as "meat" in item 11 of Schedule III, and the later separate entry for fresh eggs and poultry reinforced that distinction. The exemption claim therefore failed and the taxing authorities' classification was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition under Article 226 to decide whether a commodity fell within an exemption entry under the sales tax law. (ii) Whether egg, live poultry and dressed poultry were covered by the word "meat" in item 11 of Schedule III to the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition under Article 226 to decide whether a commodity fell within an exemption entry under the sales tax law.

Analysis: The availability of writ jurisdiction to test whether a commodity is exigible to tax or protected by an exemption was recognised. A question of classification under a taxing entry can be examined in proceedings under Article 226 where the controversy turns on the true meaning of the entry and the authorities have acted on an alleged misconstruction.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether egg, live poultry and dressed poultry were covered by the word "meat" in item 11 of Schedule III to the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Analysis: The entry had to be construed in its ordinary, natural and popular sense, as understood in trade by the dealer and the consumer. On that test, egg was not flesh, live poultry was a sale of birds and not meat, and dressed poultry was also not understood in common parlance as meat. The later insertion of a separate entry for fresh eggs and poultry reinforced the legislative distinction between meat on one hand and eggs and poultry on the other. The burden to show exemption was not discharged by the petitioner. The contrary views that had treated dressed poultry as meat were not accepted.

Conclusion: Egg, live poultry and dressed poultry were not meat within item 11 of Schedule III, and the exemption claim failed.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the taxing authorities was upheld, and the exemption claim in respect of eggs and poultry was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Undefined entries in a sales tax exemption schedule must be interpreted in their ordinary and popular sense as understood in trade, and an assessee claiming exemption must prove that the commodity clearly falls within the exempted entry.

---