2013 (1) TMI 699 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the honourable Tax Tribunal was justified in underreading and ignoring completely the use of the words mixture of while interpreting entry No. 53 of Schedule B of the Repealed Act and declaring each of the constituent as mentioned in entry No. 53, as poultry feed within the meaning of entry No. 53 of Schedule B of the Repealed Act? Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, any ingredient of mixture, mentioned under entry No. 53, can by itself be held as poultry feed within the meaning of entry No. 53 of Schedule B of the Repealed Act? Held that - The assessee in the present case has been given the benefit of exemption on the ground that the sale of feed supplements such as proteins, salts and minerals, vitamins, antibiotics and coccidiostats would also constitute poultry feed . The very fact that each of the feed supplements can individually be given to the cattle, shall not exclude such feed from the exemption clause as object of giving exemption to the poultry feed under the Act is to promote sale of poultry feed/supplements . Consequently, find that no substantial question of law requires consideration by this court in the present appeals. The same are accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Interpretation of entry 53 of Schedule B to the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.
3. Exemption of tax on sale of feed supplements as "poultry feed".
4. Application of legal principles in tax exemption cases.

Condonation of Delay:
The court condoned a delay of 152 days in filing the appeal based on reasons recorded in the application, allowing the Civil Miscellaneous application.

Interpretation of Entry 53:
The case involved the interpretation of entry 53 of Schedule B to the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, regarding the classification of "feed supplements" as "poultry feed". The Assessing Authority initially exempted the sale of feed supplements from tax, but a revisional authority later imposed tax, which was challenged. The Tribunal reinstated the exemption, treating feed supplements as poultry feed under entry 53.

Tax Exemption on Feed Supplements:
The Tribunal's decision to exempt the appellant from tax on the sale of feed supplements was based on the interpretation of entry 53. The State of Haryana appealed this decision, questioning the Tribunal's interpretation and application of the law. The State argued that the Tribunal ignored key words in the entry and questioned whether individual constituents of the mixture could be considered poultry feed.

Application of Legal Principles:
Various legal precedents were cited to support the Tribunal's decision, including a Supreme Court case regarding animal feed supplements and High Court judgments on definitions of cattle and poultry feed. The court emphasized the principle that for an article to be covered by a particular entry, it must be predominantly used for the purpose envisioned in the legal provision. Additionally, the court highlighted the strict construction of exemption provisions in tax laws, stating that any doubt should benefit the State.

Conclusion:
The court found no substantial question of law requiring consideration in the appeals, leading to their dismissal. The decision to exempt the sale of feed supplements as poultry feed was upheld, emphasizing the promotion of poultry feed sales under the Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting tax exemption provisions strictly and in favor of the State in case of ambiguity.