The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Brite Poultry Farm - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
sales tax - exemption - assessee claimed exemption of turnover of dressed chicken on basis of government order which exempted 'meat' from sales tax - 'meat' means flesh of animals excluding fish or poultry - dressed chicken cannot be regarded as 'meat' - no exemption can be granted on turnover of dressed chicken. - all india services act, 1951. sections 32(c) (as amended by section 3 of amendment act, 2005] & 10 & general clauses act, 1897, section 6: [g.s. singhvi, cj, dr.g. yethirajulu, ramesh ranganathan, g.bhavani prasad, c.v. nagarjuna reddy, jj] exemption of building from applicability of provisions of act held, (per majority) section 32(c) of the act provides that the provisions of the act shall not apply to any building the rent of which as on the date of the commencement of the a.p. buildings ( lease, rent and eviction) control (amendment) act 2005 exceeds rs.3,500/- per month in the areas covered by the municipal corporations in the state and rs.2,000/- per month in other areas. there is nothing in the provisions of the amendment act which either expressly or by necessary implication suggests that the act is given retrospective operation. section 32 (c) of the amendment act is prospective in operation and this provision does not affect the proceedings pending as on the date of its coming into force before the civil courts or appellate, revisional or executing courts. these cases are required to be decided without reference to and applications of the provisions of the amendment act, 2005. undisputedly when the landlords filed their suits, the rent prescribed in the notification in force for the purpose of exempting buildings was rs.1,000/- and above. the landlords were therefore entitled under common law to approach the civil courts for seeking eviction of their tenants by availing the remedy of civil suits. in the absence of the amended provision being given retrospective operation, the crystallised rights of landlords on dates of their filing the civil suits cannot be taken away by reading amended provisions of section 32 (c) into section 10(1) of the act. as the amendment act is not retrospective in operation pending proceedings are saved by the aforementioned provisions. therefore, apart from the vested rights acquired by the landlords in these cases, by application of section 6(c) and (e) of the general clauses act, 1897 and section 8(d) and (f) of the a.p. general clauses act, 1891, the landlords have got acquired or accrued right to continue the proceedings despite the coming into force of the amended provision. ordery.v. anjaneyulu, j.1. in this tax revision case filed by the state, the question that arises for consideration is, whether dressed chicken could be regarded as 'meat' 2. it is not denied that the assessee in this case deals in dressed chicken. the assessee claimed exemption of the turnover of dressed chicken contending that g.o. ms. no. 1091, revenue, dated 10th june, 1957 exempt the turnover of meat from sales tax, and the same is applicable in the present case. the assessing authority rejected the claim and subjected the turnover to tax. the tribunal accepted the assessee's plea that dressed chicken could be considered as meat and consequently exempt under the aforementioned g.o. aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the tribunal, the state has filed this tax revision case. 3. we are afraid, dressed chicken cannot be regarded as meat. meat, as is popularly known, and even according to the current dictionary meaning, is flesh of animals excluding fish or poultry. in the popular sense, dressed chicken is not called meat. 4. the learned government pleader invites our attention to the decision of a full bench of the gauhati high court in shri nalini ranjan sirkar v. superintendent of taxes [1968] 62 stc 21. the full bench has taken the same view in the above case. we are in respectful agreement with the said decision. 5. we accordingly hold that the assessee in the present case is not entitled to claim exemption of the turnover of dressed chicken under the g.o. dated 10th june, 1957. 6. the tax revision case is allowed. no costs. 7. advocate's fee rs. 200. 8. petition allowed.

Judgment:
ORDER

Y.V. Anjaneyulu, J.

1. In this tax revision case filed by the State, the question that arises for consideration is, whether dressed chicken could be regarded as 'meat'

2. It is not denied that the assessee in this case deals in dressed chicken. The assessee claimed exemption of the turnover of dressed chicken contending that G.O. Ms. No. 1091, Revenue, dated 10th June, 1957 exempt the turnover of meat from sales tax, and the same is applicable in the present case. The assessing authority rejected the claim and subjected the turnover to tax. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea that dressed chicken could be considered as meat and consequently exempt under the aforementioned G.O. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, the State has filed this tax revision case.

3. We are afraid, dressed chicken cannot be regarded as meat. Meat, as is popularly known, and even according to the current dictionary meaning, is flesh of animals excluding fish or poultry. In the popular sense, dressed chicken is not called meat.

4. The learned Government Pleader invites our attention to the decision of a Full Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Shri Nalini Ranjan Sirkar v. Superintendent of Taxes [1968] 62 STC 21. The Full Bench has taken the same view in the above case. We are in respectful agreement with the said decision.

5. We accordingly hold that the assessee in the present case is not entitled to claim exemption of the turnover of dressed chicken under the G.O. dated 10th June, 1957.

6. The tax revision case is allowed. No costs.

7. Advocate's fee Rs. 200.

8. Petition allowed.