Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner is engaged in the business of supplying cleaned and cut chickens as well as processed chicken. The returns filed by the dealer was perused with reference to Form-WW return and Audited balance sheet. There was vast difference between the turnover in the monthly returns filed and the one reported in Form-WW Return. Therefore, it was proposed to assess the book turnover. The petitioner paid tax at 5% on the sale of processed poultry sold in packages to retailers. But they have not paid any tax on the processed poultry sold in trays to hotels/restaurants. There is a separate entry for processed poultry under Entry 108 of Part B of the First Schedule (Commodity code 2108), taxable at the rate of 5%. The petitioner is trading only in processed poultry and not live poultry. They purchased machinery for that purpose and availed input tax credit on the tax paid thereon on the purchase of machinery as "capital goods". The dealer had 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 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.

5. Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned counsel for the petitioner made his submissions. A written submission is also filed on behalf of the petitioner. The sum and substance of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are as follows:

The unprocessed meat and poultry is exempted under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act 2006 read with Schedule IV, Part B, Entry 54 of the Act. The respondent has assessed the goods to tax under Entry 108 of Part B of Schedule I, which are goods taxable at 5%, while Entry 108 deals with "processed meat, poultry or fish". Thus, the issue that arises for consideration is what is the meaning and purport of the word "processed" and how the two entries i.e. Entry 54 and Entry 108 are to be harmoniously construed. There is no "processing" involved in the sales of meat, which are de-feathered, cleaned and cut and sold in trays or buckets to restaurants. The petitioner is also dealing with chicken, which are processed in the sense preservatives are added, the chickens were packed http://www.judis.nic.in and sold under the branded names to super markets and retail stores. In those cases, the petitioner is paying 5% tax. The argument of the respondent is squarely contrary to the judgments in the cases of State of Tamilnadu vs. Eastern Aquatic Traders, 1985 (58) STC 151 Mad, Sterling Foods vs State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 1809 and Deputy Commissioner vs Poi Food Packers, AIR 1980 SC 1227. In all those cases, it was held that processing should mean that the commodity before processing and the commodity after processing is a distinct and different one. If the argument of the respondent is to be accepted that mere cutting and cleaning 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. http://www.judis.nic.in Therefore, there is no case made out for wilful non disclosure of revenue.