I.T.C. LTD. versus THE PERSON INCHARGE, AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, KAKINADA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 30-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

} 
) 
l.T:C. LTD. 
v.· 
THE PERSON INCHARGE, AGRICULTURAL 
MARKET COMMITTEE, KAKINADA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 30, 2004 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Agricultural Produce: 
A 
B 
Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966- C 
Sections 3 and 12-State Government not(ftcation regulating purchase and 
sale of livestock, classifj1ing live prawns including prawns with or without life 
in any form, in fish group-Company engaged in purchasing dead prawns, 
thereafter processing and exporting them-levy of market fee-Plea that prawn 
not livestock, thus market fee not leviable-Justiflcation of-Held: Prawn falls D 
within the definition of fish in the Maritime Act having all attributes of animal, 
hence a lirestock and Company liable to pay market fee-Maritime Zones <?l 
India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981-Section 2(b). 
State Government issued notification under Section 3 of the Andhra 
Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 for E 
regulating purchase and sale of live stock classifying in different groups 
where live prawn including prawn with or without life in any form are 
included in fish group. 
Appellant-company is engaged in business of purchase of dead 
prawns, processing and exporting them to various countries under a F 
licence issued under the Act. Appellant was served notice demanding 
market fee and it filed writ petition challenging the same. High Court 
dismissed the writ petition relying on its earlier judgment of Division 
Bench in similar matters. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant contended that in common parlance prawn with or without G 
life is not treated as 'livestock' and so the State Government could not 
have issued any notification under Section 3 of the Act and demand market 
fee for the same; that since animal is always a quadruped, creature, prawn 
in not an animal and consequently not a livestock; that on the basis of Sri 
19 
H 
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A Lakshmi Dry Fish Traders v. State of A. P. 's,case even if fish is considered 
to be an animal, dry fish cannot fall within the sweep of the definition 
'livestock' and thus, 'dry ~sh' could not be included in Schedule II thereof; 
and since the State Government did not file an appeal against the said 
decision, ·it is not open to the State Government to contend now that prawn 
with or without life is livestock. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Normally, in common parlance animal is understood as 
a quadruped creature but fish is also an animal but of different kind. 
C Prawn is included in the definition of fisll'Under Section 2(b) of Maritime 
Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1987 and 
has all the essential attributes of an animal, viz., life, sensation and 
voluntary motion. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that prawn is not a 
livestock. Thus, the State Government is fully competent to issue a 
notification regarding prawns under Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh 
D (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 ,whereunder live 
prawns including prawns with or without life in any form has been 
notified. The commodity which the appellant purchases namely dead 
prawns, which after processing is exported to various countries are clearly 
included in the notification issued by the State Government. Further, 
Section 12 of the Act which is the charging section, empowers the Market 
E Committee to levy fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or 
products of livestock purchased or sold in the notified market area, hence 
the appellant is liable to pay market fee. 125-D-E; 24-A-Bf 
F 
Royal Hatcheries Pvt. ltd. v. State of A.P .. 119941 Supp. I SCC 429, 
referred to. 
Peterborough Royal Foxhound Show Society v. l.R.C., I 193611 All ER 
813, referred to. 
1.2. _The principle laid down in Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan 
G Dalal and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Narender Doshi's case that where 
the High Court decides the matter on the basis of an earlier judgment and 
the Revenue does not challenge the same by filing an appeal, the revenue 
must, therefore, be bound by the principle laid down therein and it is not 
open to the Revenue to accept that judgment in the case of assessee and 
challenge its correctness in the case of other assessee without just cause, 
H is not applicable to the instant case since in Sri lashmi Dry Fish Traders 's 
-
\ 
~ 
..... 
~ 
f 
-'·• 
' 
J.T.C. LTD. 1•. PE

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.