TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1468
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....andling is in respect of chicken meant for distribution to retail outlets like super markets and stores. In this mode, the chicken, after being cut and cleaned, is frozen at -18°c and then packaged. In this second method also, there is no processing involved except packaging and branding. b) Under the TNVAT Act 2006, sale of meat, after cleaning and cutting, falls under Entry 54 of Part B of Schedule IV and is exempted from tax by Section 15 of the said Act. Only the 'processed meat, poultry and fish' carry a taxable rate of 5%. In so far as the supply of frozen chicken to retailers, the petitioner is paying 5% VAT, since the exemption granted under Entry 54 of Part B of Schedule IV does not exempt processed, branded and packed goods. The meat sold to the retailers, eateries and hotels are not 'packed', 'processed' or 'branded'. It is simply cleaned, cut and supplied on the same day. Hence, it is covered by the exemption in Entry 54 of Part B of Schedule IV. c) The respondent issued show cause notice on 22.03.2017 for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the turnovers should not be redet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....processed the live poultry and claimed incorrect exemption on the sale of processed poultry. Therefore, the entire turnover is liable to tax at 5%. Show cause notice was issued and the reply submitted by the petitioner was perused. As no documentary evidences were produced in support of their contention, final orders were issued also by imposing penalty, as the petitioner had suppressed their turnover and not reported them while filing returns. The right course for the petitioner as against the impugned orders is to file statutory appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which they have not done. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no process involved, is not correct, because they clean the poultry and cut them into pieces according to the requirements and then, transfer it to their customers. Even though the supply to the restaurants, etc., in a tray is not packed, the process is one and the same and hence, the product is taxable, since it is supplied in tray for the sake of convenience. 4. A rejoinder is filed by the petitioner, wherein it is stated as follows: The impugned orders were not served on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is processing, then Entry 54 becomes redundant. It is well settled that the Courts would not accord an interpretation to the words appearing in a statute in a manner so as to make another part of the statute redundant. When two parts of a statute are at an apparent conflict with each other, the Courts would always accord a meaning so as to harmoniously construe both provisions, so as to give effect to both provisions and not make one provision redundant or otiose. In the impugned orders, the respondent has not even considered the explanation offered by the petitioner, in so far as the revised Form WW is concerned. If the revised Form WW is considered, there is no discrepancy at all between the books of accounts and the form. Therefore, there is no case made out for wilful non disclosure of revenue. 6. Mr.Mohammed Shathiq, learned Special Government Pleader appeared and argued for the respondent. A written submission is also filed on behalf of the respondent. The sum and substance of the submissions made on behalf of the respondent are as follows: a) The writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner is having statutory appellate remedy against the impugned orders of asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing for the respondent. I have perused the materials placed before this Court and also given my careful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties. 8. The orders under challenge are assessment orders passed in respect of the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. It is contended by the respondent that as against these impugned orders, statutory appellate remedy is available to the petitioner and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. On the other hand, it is contended by the petitioner that the issue involved in this case is in respect of interpretation of two statutory provisions viz., Entry No.108 of Part B of Schedule I and Section 15 of TNVAT Act, 2006 read with Schedule IV, Part B, Entry 54 of the said Act. It is thus contended by the petitioner that since the activities carried on by the petitioner, as claimed by the respondent, are not in dispute, the only question to be considered and decided in this writ petition is as to whether, on those admitted activities of the petitioner, the subject matter goods would fall under Entry 54 of Part B of Schedule IV under the TNVAT Act, 2006, as claimed by the petitioner or would fall under Entry 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....art-B of Schedule-IV of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 11. Based on the above admitted facts, the dispute between the parties is in respect of sale made through the first method namely, slaughtering live chicken, cleaning and cutting as per specification and sending it to the commercial buyers in trays. According to the petitioner, the above said sale does not involve any 'processing' activity within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and the word 'processing' used in the petitioner Company's name is only symbolic. Therefore, the petitioner claims that the sale of chicken, after cleaning and cutting without involving any process is exempted under Entry 54 of Part-B of Schedule-IV of the said Act. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent that the activity, namely slaughtering, cleaning and cutting the poultry/live chicken would certainly fall within the meaning of 'processing' and therefore, once it is a processed poultry, it would fall under Entry 108 of Part-B of Schedule-I. 12. Therefore, based on the above facts and circumstances, this Court has to first see whether the admitted activities of slaugh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Entry 108 in Part B of I Schedule refers the poultry as a processed one. In other words, it is to be noted that while Entry 54 deals with live poultry, Entry 108 deals with the poultry, which has undergone the process such as slaughtering, defeathering, cleaning and cutting so as to enable the consumer of the same to carry it to the next stage of cooking. Certainly, the petitioner is not entitled to take shelter under the word "meat" referred to under Entry 54 especially, when the word "poultry" is specifically referred to therein, apart from the word 'meat', while describing the goods under such Entry. Even otherwise, 'meat' referred to under Entry 54 is a meat other than branded, processed and packed. Thus, it is evident that if an act of process takes place in respect of the poultry, such poultry will not fall under Entry 54, since, as already stated supra, the term 'poultry' referred to therein would certainly indicate poultry as such or live poultry and not the processed one. Therefore, if the poultry is processed, the same would certainly fall under Entry 108 of Part B of I Schedule only and not under Entry 54 of Part B of IV Schedule. 16. Now let me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng statutes, has observed at paragraph No.46 as follows: "46. This Court in Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spg. & Ginning Mills Federation Ltd. v. CIT (2014) 11 SCC 672] again reiterated that there has to be strict interpretation of taxing statutes and further the fact that one class of legal entities is given some benefit which is specifically stated in the Act does not mean that the legal entities not referred to in the Act would also get the same benefit. The following was laid down in para 23: (SCC p. 678)" "23. We are also of the view that in all the tax matters one has to interpret the taxation statute strictly. Simply because one class of legal entities are given some benefit which is specifically stated in the Act does not mean that the legal entities not referred to in the Act would also get the same benefit. As stated by this Court on several occasions, there is no equity in matters of taxation. One cannot read into a section which has not been specifically provided for and therefore, we do not agree with the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and we are not prepared to read something in the section which has not been provided for. The judgment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roducts. Here again, the appellants therein relied on Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 claiming total exemption from tax in respect of the purchase of shrimps, prawns and lobsters on the ground that the same had been purchased in the course of export. Before the export, the raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters were subjected to processing like cutting of heads and tails, peeling, deveining, cleaning and freezing. Therefore, the question that arose before the Apex Court for its determination in the said appeal was whether the shrimps, prawns and lobsters subjected to such processing ceased to be the same commodity and become a different commodity for the purpose of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Under such circumstances, the Apex Court has pointed out that the shrimps, prawns and lobsters therein did not lose the original character and identity when they are subjected to processing for the purpose of export and they remained the same goods and hence, the purchase of raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters must be held to be purchase in the course of export and exempt from liability of tax. Thus, from the above facts and circumstances, it is seen that the issue involved in Ster....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s follows: "8. This conclusion on principle was not disputed by the High Court in its judgment and the High Court conceded that even after processing such as cutting of heads and tails, peeling, deveining, cleaning and freezing, shrimps, prawns and lobsters subjected to such processing continued in common parlance to be called "shrimps, prawns and lobsters". But the High Court took the view that Entry 13-a after the amendment effected in it with retrospective effect from September 1, 1978, made a distinction between raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters and processed or frozen shrimps, prawns and lobsters. In view of this distinction made in entry 13-a, if was not possible to hold that processed or frozen shrimps, prawns and lobsters were the same commodity as raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters. The argument was that when the State legislature itself made a distinction between these categories of commodities by making purchases of one category amenable to sales tax under Entry 13-a and leaving out of the scope of taxation under Entry 13-a the other category, how could it be said that both these categories represent the same commodity and there is no difference in character and identit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mercial parlance. If in commercial parlance and according to what is understood in the trade by the dealer and the consumer, processed or frozen shrimps, prawns and lobsters retain their original character and identity as shrimps, prawns and lobsters and do not become a new distinct commodity and are as much "shrimps, prawns and lobsters", as raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters, sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act would be attracted and if with a view to fulfilling the existing contracts for export, the assessee purchases raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters and processes and freezes them, such purchases of raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters would be deemed to be in course of export so as to be exempt from liability to State sales tax. 9. Here in the present case, it was not disputed on behalf of revenue that the purchases of raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters were made by the appellants for the purpose of fulfilling existing contracts for export and after making such purchases the appellants subjected raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters purchased by them to the process of cutting of heads and tails, peeling, deveining, cleaning and freezing and exported such processed an....