Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 redetermined and penalty imposed by contending that the cleaning, cutting and selling of meat to the restaurants, eateries, hotels is also "processed meat". The respondent has not applied his mind to understand that meat is never sold as an un-cleaned dead livestock in any butcher's shop. The dead http://www.judis.nic.in livestock, poultry is cleaned, organs are removed, chopped into pieces and only then sold as 'meat'. Cutting and removing organs do not constitute 'processing' within the meaning of TNVAT Act. When a commodity is being assessed to tax, it is important to note whether the processing has changed the nature of commodity.

d) The petitioner through their reply dated 10.04.2017 and 27.04.2017 explained that the meat supplied to the restaurants, hotels and eateries are not processed meat and thus, they are exempted from payment of VAT Act. The respondent rejected the objections and passed the impugned assessment orders. The respondent has also imposed penalty of 150%, apart from assessing difference of tax payable.

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.