LAWS(SC)-1986-4-9

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX LAW BOARD OF REVENUE TAXES ERNAKULAM KERALA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX LAW BOARD OF REVENUE TAXES ERNAKULAM KERALA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX LAW BO Vs. A B ISMAIL:PITCHA ALIAS SYED MOHAMMED MUTTON DEALER KOZHINJAMPARA KERALA:V M MOIDEEN MUTTON DEALER EDAPAL KERALA STATE:VEEMBAN KUTTY MUTTON DEALER NADA KAVU VITHANASSERI CHITTUR TALUK KERALA:KARIMBIL MOHAMMOOD MUTTON DEALER MA

Decided On April 15, 1986
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Appellant
V/S
A.B.ISMAIL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls to be decided in these appeals, by certificate, against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, is whether goat and sheep and the meat got after slaughtering them are the same for the purpose of sales tax in the State. The High Court, disagreeing with the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held them to be the same goods.

(2.) It is the admitted case in the appeals that the respondents purchase goat and sheep for slaughtering them and then sell the meat they get after such slaughter. It is also admitted that live. stock will be goods within the meaning of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (the Act for short). The respondents submitted nil returns claiming exemption on the sales turnover of meat and skin. Assessments were completed accepting these nil returns. Subsequently the assessees were informed that the purchase turnover of goats and sheep had escaped levy of tax under S. 5-A of the Act. After necessary hearing, assessment orders were passed, holding that the assessees converted the animals into meat by a manufacturing process, within the meaning of S. 5-A of the Act. The Appellate Officer and the Tribunal agreed with this finding of the assessing officer. The assessees took the matter before the High Court and challenged the assessment order. The High Court. quashed the assessment orders and held that the meat got after slaughtering the animals will not be 'other goods' within the meaning of S. 5-A. Hence these appeals by the State.

(3.) For a proper understanding of the dispute raised in these cases it is necessary to read Section 5-A(1)(a) of the Act which alone is relevant of our purpose.