Commnr. of Sales Tax, UP Vs. M/s Ram Chandra Asha, Ram (Dead) Through LRs.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4288 of 1998
Petitioner: Commnr. of Sales Tax, UP
Respondent: M/s Ram Chandra Asha, Ram (Dead) Through LRs.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4288 of 1998
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 03, 2000
Head Note:
Interpretation of statutes
U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948
‘Cattle fodder’ – Meaning – Respondent dealer purchasing damaged wheat from Food Corporation of India unfit for human consumption – Sale of damaged wheat allowed only subject to converting it into cattle fodder – Whether such dam-aged wheat is ‘cattle fodder’ – High Court holding that cattle fodder included damaged wheat – Words and Phrases. Held. In generic sense the expression cattle fodder includes every thing that is fed to cattle including damaged wheat. No exception from this generic definition has been carved out in the exemption notification dated 5.6.1985. Appeal dismissed.
Cases Reffered:
1. Kalloomal Samaldas v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (54 STC 103).
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. In this case, the question raised before us is whether dam-aged wheat purchased by the original Respondent-dealer (herei-nafter referred to as the Respondent-dealer) which is subjected to certain process before being sold is “cattle fodder” for the purpose of the Notification dated 5.6.85. The definition of cattle fodder reads as follows:
“Cattle fodder including green fodder chuni, bhusi, chhilka, chokar, jave (popularly known as Gharjai), gowar, de-oiled cake, de-oiled rice polish, de-oiled rice bran or de-oiled rice husk, but not including oil cake (Khali) rice polish, rice bran or rice husk.”
2. The High Court on examination of the material before it took the view that the dealer purchased from the Food Corporation of India, damaged wheat which is unfit for human consumption subject to the restriction to sell only on conversion into cattle fodder by grinding it. Based on this material, the High Court came to the conclusion that the expression “cattle fodder” includes the damaged wheat which is sold by the Respondent-dealer and thus his claim for exemption is allowed.
3. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant con-tended that the definition of “cattle fodder” should be under-stood in the manner stated in the notification and even in ordi-nary sense with reference to the trade with which we are con-cerned, the cattle fodder would not include damaged wheat though it may be a feed for cattle. He submitted that all that is fed to cattle would not become fodder. He relied upon a decision in Kalloomal Samaldas v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (54 STC 103) wher-ein the provisions of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 in so far as cattle feed is concerned came up for consideration. Shri Mahabir Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent-dealer supports the view taken by the High Court.
4. What is exempted under the Notification of 5.6.85 is cattle fodder. In generic sense the expression “cattle fodder” is inclusive of everything that is fed to cattle including damaged wheat. In the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the Appellant this aspect is noticed but in that particular case fodder was defined as “fodder except cotton seed and oil cakes”. In the present case there is no such exclusion of the damaged wheat that is processed and used as feed for the cattle. If that is so, we do not think that there is any justification to inter-fere with the view taken by the High Court. The appeal is dis-missed. However, in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
1. In this case, the question raised before us is whether dam-aged wheat purchased by the original Respondent-dealer (herei-nafter referred to as the Respondent-dealer) which is subjected to certain process before being sold is “cattle fodder” for the purpose of the Notification dated 5.6.85. The definition of cattle fodder reads as follows:
“Cattle fodder including green fodder chuni, bhusi, chhilka, chokar, jave (popularly known as Gharjai), gowar, de-oiled cake, de-oiled rice polish, de-oiled rice bran or de-oiled rice husk, but not including oil cake (Khali) rice polish, rice bran or rice husk.”
2. The High Court on examination of the material before it took the view that the dealer purchased from the Food Corporation of India, damaged wheat which is unfit for human consumption subject to the restriction to sell only on conversion into cattle fodder by grinding it. Based on this material, the High Court came to the conclusion that the expression “cattle fodder” includes the damaged wheat which is sold by the Respondent-dealer and thus his claim for exemption is allowed.
3. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant con-tended that the definition of “cattle fodder” should be under-stood in the manner stated in the notification and even in ordi-nary sense with reference to the trade with which we are con-cerned, the cattle fodder would not include damaged wheat though it may be a feed for cattle. He submitted that all that is fed to cattle would not become fodder. He relied upon a decision in Kalloomal Samaldas v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (54 STC 103) wher-ein the provisions of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 in so far as cattle feed is concerned came up for consideration. Shri Mahabir Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent-dealer supports the view taken by the High Court.
4. What is exempted under the Notification of 5.6.85 is cattle fodder. In generic sense the expression “cattle fodder” is inclusive of everything that is fed to cattle including damaged wheat. In the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the Appellant this aspect is noticed but in that particular case fodder was defined as “fodder except cotton seed and oil cakes”. In the present case there is no such exclusion of the damaged wheat that is processed and used as feed for the cattle. If that is so, we do not think that there is any justification to inter-fere with the view taken by the High Court. The appeal is dis-missed. However, in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
