Gupta, J. - (1.) In this appeal by special leave the only question is whether 'meat on hoof' is taxable under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This can be answered only after one is able to gather the meaning of that expression as used in this case.
(2.) The question arises on the following facts. The appellants are a firm of army contractors, registered as a dealer under the Act as also under the Central Sales Tax Act. Under the contract between them and the army authorities, they had to supply, among other things meat and meat on hoof. Under Section 6 read with Entry 18 Schedule B to the Act no tax is payable on the sale of meat, fish and eggs except when sold in tins, bottles or cartons. For the year 1965-66 the appellants were assessed on the returns filed by them, and the sale of meat to the army, whether in dressed form or as meat on hoof, was not taxed. Subsequently the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, Patiala, issued notices to the appellants seeking to reopen the assessment under Sec. 21 and impose penalty on the appellants under Sec. 10(7) of the Act. According to the Commissioner 'meat on hoof'; was an army term for goat and sheep and was taxable, and did not come under Entry 18 of Schedule B. The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for quashing the said notices. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, and on appeal a Division Bench affirmed the order of dismissal.
(3.) The case of the appellants will appear from paragraphs 4 and 9 of the writ petition. "4. That the terms of the contract between the petitioner and the army authorities clearly indicate that the meat could be in a dressed form or could be on hoofs. The goats or sheep (meat) would be supplied by the petitioner, and transported by the army to such destination as it desired, and the petitioner was paid the price on the basis of the weight of the material supplied. The sheep or goats were not valued as such, but the value was calculated on the basis of the weight." "9. That the contract between the petitioner and the army authorities clearly indicated that it related to the supply of meat, and it was for the army authorities to decide whether to receive the same in the dressed form or on hoofs. Of course, when the supply was made on hoofs, for the calculation of value, 50% of the weight of the animal was considered to be dressed meat, and paid for accordingly." In answer to the allegations made in these two paragraphs, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, stated that the terms of the contract between the dealer and the army authorities were not relevant and that the goods supplied were taxable.;