Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + SC VAT and Sales Tax - 2007 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (5) TMI 5 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxClassification Horn and hoof in common parlance do not come within the definition of bone After considering all the fact matter remitted back to Tribunal for consideration of matter a fresh on merits.
Issues involved:
Interpretation of trade tax notifications regarding the classification of crushed bones, horns, and hooves for taxation purposes. Analysis: The case revolves around the classification of 'horn' and 'hoof' in relation to the definition of 'bone' for taxation under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The appellants are dealers in crushed bones, horns, and hooves, registered under relevant tax acts. Various notifications issued by the State of U.P. created confusion by treating bones, crushed bones, horns, and hooves differently for tax purposes over the years. The Supreme Court examined the historical notifications and their amendments to determine the tax liability on crushed bones sold as fertilizer. In a previous case, the Court emphasized that commodities must be taxed based on their common law identity and utility. The distinction between 'bone meal' and 'crushed bone' was highlighted, emphasizing the need for expert opinions on the usage of crushed bones as fertilizer. A crucial finding from a related case highlighted that while crushed bones were taxable, horns and hooves were not specifically mentioned for taxation, indicating a tax-free status. However, the High Court erred in considering crushed horns and hooves as taxable, contrary to expert opinions and common parlance understanding. The Court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation that horns and hooves could be considered bones, emphasizing the lack of statutory definitions. The Supreme Court further disagreed with the Tribunal's finding that crushed horns and hooves were solely used as manure, citing the production of other articles from horns as evidence against this claim. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration with the opportunity for additional evidence. The requirement for the appellant to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount was waived, and no costs were awarded in the case.
|