Processed poultry falls under the taxable entry where admitted activities amount to processing; exemption cannot be expanded beyond its terms.

Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable because the dispute turned on interpretation of the statutory entries on admitted facts, not on jurisdictional error or natural justice. On classification, slaughtering, defeathering, cleaning and cutting of chicken with machinery for market supply was treated as processing; processed poultry therefore fell under the taxable entry for processed meat and poultry, while the exemption for meat, fish, poultry and livestock could not be expanded to cover processed goods. The penalty was also upheld because the turnover suppression and tax classification were sustained, and the final result was dismissal of the writ petition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of a statutory appeal. (ii) Whether slaughtering, defeathering, cleaning and cutting of chicken amounted to processing so as to attract the taxable entry and sustain the penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of a statutory appeal.

Analysis: The assessment orders were not assailed on jurisdictional grounds or for violation of natural justice, but the dispute turned on the interpretation of the relevant entries under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Since the material facts were undisputed and the controversy required determination of the correct statutory entry on admitted activities, the remedy under writ jurisdiction was held to be maintainable.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether slaughtering, defeathering, cleaning and cutting of chicken amounted to processing so as to attract the taxable entry and sustain the penalty.

Analysis: Entry 54 of Part B of the Fourth Schedule exempts meat, fish, poultry and livestock other than branded, processed and packed items, while Entry 108 of Part B of the First Schedule covers processed meat, poultry and fish taxable at 5%. The admitted activities involved slaughtering, defeathering, cleaning and cutting the poultry with machinery for supply in a marketable form, which was treated as processing. The court held that processing need not result in a new commodity and that the exemption in Entry 54 could not be enlarged to cover processed poultry. The claim based on discrimination and the challenge to penalty also failed, as the turnover suppression and the tax classification were upheld.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classified as processed poultry under Entry 108, the exemption under Entry 54 was unavailable, and the penalty under Section 27(3)(c) was sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The assessment orders were upheld and the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute separately classifies processed goods and exempt goods, admitted activities that amount to processing must be taxed under the specific taxable entry and the exemption cannot be expanded beyond its clear terms.

---