http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: CHIRANJIT LAL ANAND

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/08/1985

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) TULZAPURKAR, V.D. MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1985 AIR 1387            1985 SCR  Supl. (2) 385  1985 SCC  Supl.  392     1985 SCALE  (2)113  CITATOR INFO :  R          1987 SC1737  (17)  D          1987 SC1885  (9)

ACT:      Assam Sales  Tax Act  1947,  Schedule  III  Item  11  - ’Meat’, sale  of - Whether includes ’meat on hoof’ - Whether exempted from sales tax.      Words and  Phrases - ’Meat’ - Whether includes ’meat on hoof’ - Assam Sales Tax Act 1947, Schedule III Item 11.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant,  who was  carrying on supply business of various items  of ration  including ’meat  on hoof’  to  the Central Reserve  Police units,  was assessed  to  sales  tax under s.19  of Assam  Sales Tax  Act, 1947  for  the  period ending 30th September 1965.      He challenged  before the High Court in a writ petition the order  of assessment and the notice of demand dated 23rd May, 1969  on the  grounds: (i)  that ’meat  on hoof’  is  a peculiar abbreviation  used mainly  by the Military which is nothing but  a live  goat and the sole purpose for which the ’meat on  hoof’ was supplied was for meat, and that it was a device to satisfy certain religious sentiments of the people in the  Military that the aforesaid phrase had been used and since ’meat’  is exempted  from sales-tax  as  appearing  at Serial No.  11 of  Schedule III  to the  Act, the assessment order was  unauthorised and  invalid;  (ii)  that  goods  as defined in Section 2(4) did not include ’meat on hoof’ which was nothing  but live  animal and the provisions of the said Act were  not attracted  to sale  of animals, and (iii) that entry  48  of  List  II  of  the  Seventh  Schedule  to  the Government of  India Act,  1935 under which the said Act was passed, the tax was on "sale of goods and on advertisements" and not  on "animals". The High Court dismissed the petition on the  ground that  ’meat’ at Serial No. 11 of Schedule III to the said Act could not be equated with ’meat on hoof’ and it was  not possible  to interpret  the exempted item in the Schedule with  reference to  what the  parties understood at the time  of the  contract and since ’meat on hoof’ was live animal, its sale is sale of goods under the said Act. 386

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

    Allowing the Appeal, ^      HELD : 1. It is well-settled that in interpreting items in statutes  like the Sales Tax Acts whose primary object is to raise revenue and for which purpose they classify diverse products, articles  and substances, resort should be had not to the  scientific and  technical meaning  of the  terms  or expressions used  but to  their  popular  meaning  i.e.  the meaning  attached   to  them   by  those  dealing  in  them. (emphasis supplied).  If any  term of  expression  has  been defined in  the enactment  then it must be understood in the sense in  which it  is defined.  But in  the absence  of any definition being  given in the enactment, the meaning of the term in  common parlance  or commercial  parlance has  to be adopted. [390 D-F]      In the  instant case,  ’meat on hoof’ is not defined in the Act.  Therefore, it must be understood in the context of the persons  who were dealing in ’meat on hoof’. It has been found as  a fact  that the  ’meat on  hoof’ was intended for supply of  ration to the personnel of the Third Battalion of the  M.S.R.P.F.   What  was   intended  to   be  bought  was undoubtedly meat for ration and a reasonable explanation has been given  as to  why instead  of near  (flesh of the goat) ’meat on  hoof’ was  asked to  be  supplied.  Therefore  the transaction that  were between  the  parties  were  for  the ’meat’ in  respect of which the levy of sales tax was sought to be  imposed. That  cannot be  done. In  that view  of the matter, the  High Court  was in  error in  holding that  the transactions in  question were subject to sales tax. [390 E- F, 392 D-E, 391 E-F, 392 E]      Indo International  Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar  Pradesh, [1981]  3 S.C.R.  294, His  Majesty the King v.  Planters Nut  and Chocolate  Co. Ltd. [1951] C.L.R. (Ex.) 122  and Commissioner  of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Jaswant Singh  Charan Singh,  [1967] 2  S.C.R. 720, Daffadar Bhagat  Singh   &  Sons   v.  Joint   Excise  and   Taxation Commissioner, Punjab,  Patiala, and  Anr.,  37  S.T.C.  527, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1763- 1766 (NT) of 1973.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  25.6.1973  of  the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rules Nos. 683-686 of 1969.      B.B. Ahuja and S.K. Nandy for the Appellant.      Miss Halida Khatoon for the Respondent. 387      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SABYASACHI MUKHARJI,  J. These  appeals are  by special leave from  a decision  of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court  in respect  of assessment  made under  the Assam Sales Tax  Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Act’). The appellant  was carrying  on supply  business of  various items of  ration to  the Central Reserve Police Units within the State  of Assam  for a number of years. In response to a tender  notice  issued  by  the  Superintendent  of  Police, Jorhat, the  appellant had  submitted  a  tender  to  supply various items  of ration  in Army  Scale including ’Meat’ on hoof’. ’Meat  on hoof’  is described in the tender notice as follows :           5(d) Contractor shall be bound to supply different           varieties of  Meat on  hoof as per following ratio           of the monthly requirement :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

                        Khasi   -  50%                          He Goat -  30%                          Sheep(Ram)-20%           The Khasi  and Ram  to be supplied for the purpose           of meat  must not  be over  5 years  or below  two           years of age and He goat must not be over one year           or below six months of age."      The tender  notice also  indicated that  all  contracts would be  on schedule  rates per 100 K.G. net. The tender of the appellant  was accepted and an agreement was made on Ist April, 1965  between the appellant and the Superintendent of Police.      According to  the appellant,  in his  application under Article 226  of the Constitution to the High Court, ’meat on hoof’ is a peculiar abbreviation used mainly by the Military which is  nothing but a live goat. It was stated that it was a device  to satisfy  certain religious  sentiments  of  the people in  the Military  that the  aforesaid phrase had been used. The appellant had further alleged in his petition that the sole  purpose for  which the  meat on  hoof was supplied was for  meat and  that was  the consideration for which the price was  fixed. It was further stated that it was a device to satisfy certain religious sentiments of the people in the Military that the aforesaid device was fixed. 388 consideration for  which the price was fixed. It was further stated that  it was  a device  to satisfy  certain religious sentiments of  the people in the Military that the aforesaid device was fixed.      Reliance  was   placed  before  the  High  Court  on  a Notification dated  11th October,  1967 in the Assam Gazette with regard to the scale of meat, though it was alleged that in actual  practice live animals were being supplied for the purpose of meat. The scale is indicated in the Assam Gazette - paragraph 14(a) and (b) which is as follows :           "14(a) The  scale of  meat for Assam Rifles is for           dressed meat.  In  actual  practice  live  animals           (Chicken in the case of hospital supplier) will be           supplied   for   the   purpose   of   meat.   Live           animals/chickens after  production and having been           passed by  the Ration  committee  may  in  certain           supply  points/   stations  be   required  to   be           slaughtered under  customary rights  prevalent  in           the unit  by the contractor at his own expense and           agreements. After the carcass has been dressed and           wiped down  it will  be hung  for  3  to  6  hours           according to  the season  of set. Then dressed out           meat will  be duly  weighed and  supplied  to  the           supply points/stations as per demand.           (b)  In   case  of  OPs  which  are  dependent  on           Bn.HQ/Wing  HQ/sub-wing  HQ  for  the  purpose  of           supply,  contractor   will  have  to  supply  live           animals for  the purpose  of  meat  and  half  the           weight of such live animals, i.e. 50 per cent only           will be taken as equal to that of dressed meat."      The appellant  in response to a notice under the Sales- Tax Act  originally did  not  file  any  return.  Thereafter assessment was made under Section 19 of the said Act for the period  ending   30th  September,  1965.  Application  under Article 226  of the  Constitution was made to the High Court to quash  the said  order of  assessment and  the notice  of Demand dated  23rd May,  1969 in pursuance of the assessment order.      It was  the contention  of the appellant that ’meat’ is exempted from  sales-tax as  appearing at  Serial No.  11 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

Schedule III  to the Act and since ’meat on hoof’ was noting but ’meat’,  the assessment  in this case under the said Act was unauthorised  and invalid.  Section 2(4) of the said Act defines goods as follows : 389           "2(4) "goods"  means all kinds of movable property           other than  newspapers, actionable claims, stocks,           shares or  securities, and includes all materials,           articles and  commodities, whether  or not  to  be           used for  the purposes  referred to in sub-clauses           (a) and (b) of Clause (2)."      Section 3  imposes liability  to tax  and provides that every dealer  whose gross  turnover of  sales  exceeded  the taxable quantum  as fixed  in the Act shall be liable to pay tax under  the Act.  We need  not deal with the provision in detail. Reliance  was, however, placed on Section 6(2) which provides that the provisions of the said Act shall not apply to the sale of goods specially exempted under the provisions of the said Act.      Schedule III  of the said Act deals with goods exempted under Section  7 of  the Said Act. Section 7 of the Said Act provides that  subject to  the conditions and exemptions, if any, set  out in  Schedule III to the said Act, the sales of goods specified  therein shall  be  exempted  from  taxation under the  said Act. Item 11 of Schedule III to the said act reads as follows : ------------------------------------------------------------ Sl. No.        Description.            Conditions and except                                        subject to which                                        exemption has been                                        allowed. ------------------------------------------------------------      X X X X X X      X X X X X X 11. Fish, Ghee (But not vegetable ghee), Except when sold in     Dahi, Butter, Cream, Ceasin, Meat   sealed containers.     and Vegetables (but not Onion,     Garlic Spices and Condiments.)      It was  also submitted  on behalf of the appellant that goods as  defined in  Section 2(4)  did not include ’meat on hoof’ which  was nothing  but live animal and the provisions of the  said Act  were not  attracted to  sale  of  animals. Thirdly and  lastly it  was urged before the High Court that entry  48  of  List  II  of  the  Seventh  Schedule  to  the Government of  India Act,  1935 under which the said Act was passed, the tax was on "sale of goods and on 390 advertisements" and  not on  "animals". The  High Court held that it  was  clear  that  the  above  item  11  listed  the particular goods  exempted under  Section 7  of the Said Act and  the   conditions  and   exceptions  subject   to  which exemptions were  allowed appear  to be  "except when sold in sealed containers". The exception specified in the item also clearly pointed to "meat" being "dressed meat" and not "meat on hoof"  which was really the sale of the animal. According to the High Court, ’meat at Serial No. 11 of Schedule III to the said Act could not be equated with ’meat on hoof’ and it was not  possible to  interpret the  exempted  item  in  the Schedule with  reference to  what the  parties understood at the time  of the  contract. Apart  from that, the High Court was of  the view  that the particular item in the tender and the agreement  between the  parties was  not capable  of the meaning suggested on behalf of the appellant.      For the  aforesaid reasons and in view of the fact that in the  opinion of  the High  Court ’meat  on hoof’ was live

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

animal, and  that the  sale of animal is sale of goods under the said Act, it dismissed the application under Article 226 of the  Constitution. These appeals have been preferred from the said  decision of the High Court after obtaining special leave from this Court.      It  is  well-settled  that  in  interpreting  items  in statutes like  the Sales Tax Acts whose primary object is to raise revenue  and for  which purpose  they classify diverse products, articles  and substances, resort should be had not to the  scientific and  technical meaning  of the  terms  or expressions used  but to  their  popular  meaning  i.e.  the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them. (emphasis supplied) If  any term or expression has been defined in the enactment then  it must  be understood in the sense in which it is  defined. But  in the  absence of any definition being given in  the enactment,  the meaning  of the term in common parlance or  commercial parlance  has to be adopted. See the observations of  this Court in Indo International Industries v. Commissioner  of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh [1981] 3 S.C.R. 294, and  also in  the case  of  His  Majesty  the  King  v. Planters Nut  and Chocolate  Company Limited  [1951]  C.L.R. (ex.) 122,  (Which decision  was approved  by this  Court in Commissioner of  Sales Tax,  Madhya Pradesh v. Jaswant Singh Charan Singh) [1967] 2 S.C.R. 720.      In the context of transactions with the Central Reserve Police Force  posted North  Eastern  Region,  the  question, therefore,  is   how  is   the  expression  ’meat  on  hoof’ understood by persons who dealt in them. 391      Identical  expression   ’meat  on  hoof’  came  up  for consideration in the case of Daffadar Bhagat Singh & Sons v. Joint  Excise   and  Taxation   Commissioner,  and  Taxation Commissioner, Punjab,  Patiala and  Another 37  S.T.C.  527. There the  appellants were  a firm  of army  contractors and they were  registered as  a dealer  under the Punjab General Sales Tax  Act, 1948,  and the  Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Under the  contract between  the  appellants  and  the  army authorities, the  appellants  had  to  supply,  among  other things, "meat" and "meat on hoof". Under Section 6 read with entry 18 of Schedule to the Punjab Act no tax was payable on the sale  of meat,  fish and  eggs except when sold in tins, bottles or cartons. The question that arose in that case was whether "meat on hoof" was taxable under the Punjab Act. The High Court  was of  the view that "meat on hoof" was taxable inasmuch  as   "meat  on   hoof  was   preserved  meat,  the preservation being the natural carton consisting of the skin of the Animal". On appeal, this Court observed that the skin covering the  flesh of  the animal  preserved its  life;  to think that  the skin was a carton for the flesh, which could be used  for food  after the  animal  was  slaughtered,  was against commonsense.  This Court  further  observed  whether what was  sold by  the appellants  in that  case to the army authorities as  meat on hoof was really meat or live animals would depend  on a  correct reading  of the contract between the parties,  and since  all the  terms of the contract were not before the court, the matter was remanded.      We have  already noticed  the relevant  clause  in  the tender, the  appropriate term  in the  contract, the extract from the  Assam Gazette  and the  purpose for which the meat was being purchased. Furthermore it has been found as a fact that the  meat on  hoof was intended for supply of ration to the personnel  of the Third Battalion of the M.S.R.P.F. What was intended  to be  bought was  undoubtedly meat for ration and a  reasonable explanation  has  been  given  as  to  why instead of meat (flesh of the goat) ’meat on hoof’ was asked

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

to be  supplied. The  abundant and  undisputed  evidence  on record about the purpose of the supply and the position that ’meat on  hoof’ becomes  meat proper  as soon as the goat is slaughtered and  the skin  is pulled off, leaves no doubt in our mind that the assessee had advanced a tenable claim.      In the  Oxford English  Dictionary, 1933 Edn. Volume V, page 372,  one of the meanings of the ’hoof’ mentioned is as follows:           "The massive  horny growth which sheathes the ends           of the  digits or  in cases the foot of quadrupeds           forming 392           the order  Ungulata, primarily  that of  the horse           and other  equine animals:  It corresponds  to the           nails or claws of other quadrupeds.      In Collins  English Dictionary  at page  705 ’hoof’  is defined as under:           "1.a. the horny covering of the end of the food in           the horse,  deer, and  all other ungulate mammals.           b. (in  combination) :  a hoofbeat.  Related adj.:           ungular. 2.  the food  of an ungulate mammal. 3. a           hoofed animal.  4. Facetious. a persons’s foot. 5.           On the  hoof. (of livestock) alive-vb. 6. (tr.) to           kick or trample with the hoofs. 7. hoof it, Slang.           a. to walk. b. (intr.) to dance. (Old English hof;           related to  Old Norse  Hofr, Old  High German huof           (German Huf), Sanskrit saphas)."      In Stroud’s  Judicial Dictionary,  3rd Edn.  Vo1.2 page 1333 ’hoofs’  is mentioned  in respect  of ’Fertilisers  and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926.      In any  event, as mentioned hereinbefore ’meat on hoof’ a such is not defined in the said Act. It must be understood in the  context of  the persons who were dealing in ’meat on hoof’. Meat  is exempted  under the  said Act. Therefore the transactions that  were between  the parties  were  for  the ’meat’ in  respect of which the levy of sales tax was sought to be  imposed. That  cannot be  done. In  that view  of the matter, we  are of  the opinion  that the  High Court was in error in  holding that  the transactions  in  question  were subject to sales tax.      In the  premises these  appeals must be allowed and the appellant is  entitled to  succeed in  his application under Article 226  of the Constitution. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned  order of  assessment is hereby set aside along with  the  notice  of  demand  dated  23rd  May,  1969.  The appellant is entitled to costs of these appeals. M.L.A.                                      Appeals allowed. 393