LexROYAL HATCHARIES PVT. LTD. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B D ROYAL HATCHARIES PVT. LTD. ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. ETC. ETC. OCTOBER 15, 1993 [P.B. SAWANT AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ] The Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957/The Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957: Section 5(1)/Rule 5(2) Clause (XXVI)--Levy of tax on sales or pur- chase of goods whether general goods-Chicks-Held, Chicks are not under- stood as animals in popular sense and in common commercial parlance, and are not included within Clause (XXVI) of Rule 5(2). Intepretation of Statutes: Sales Tax enactments-Interpretation of-Held, expressions occurring in Sales Tax enactments must be understood in their popular sense. Words & Phrases-Expressions "domestic Animals'~ "that is to say'~ 'etc' occurring in clause (XXVI) of r. 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General E Sales Tax Rules, 1957-Meaning of F G The appellant-hatcharies were engaged in selliilg day-old chicks to poultry farms. The sales tax authorities treating day-old chicks as general goods, levied tax on their sales under secti"n 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. They rejected appellants' case that since day-old chicks fell within clause (xxvi) of Rules 5(2) the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, tax could be levied only at the purchase point. Appellants' writ petitions before the High Court were dismissed. Hence the appeals by speCial leave. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that day-old chicks sold by them were livestock as well as domestic animals falling under clause (xxvi) ()f Rule 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules; the word 'etc.' in clause (xxvi) indicated that the animals mentioned therein , were merely illustrative and not exhaustive and, therefore, the High Court H committed an error in holding that only quadrupeds and not birds were 368 IIATClffRIES \".STATE included uithin the said clause. A The respondent-State contended that the expressions occurring in the sales-tax statute should be understood in their popular sense and in common/commercial parlance, and since chicks were never understood as domestic animals in common/commercial parlance, they did not foll within clause (xxvi) of Rule 5(2) of the Rules. B Dismissing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1.1 Chicks sold by the appellants are not included mthin clause (xxvi) of Rule 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules. [372-B] 1.2. Clause (xxvi) of Rule 5(2) does not cover all 'livestock'. It covers only that 'livestock' which answers the description 'domestic animals'. In popular and common parlance, day-old chicks-or for that matter, chicks-· are not referred to or understood as 'animals', through in its literal sense, the word 'animal' refers to any and every 'animate' object as distinct from inanimate objects .. Words of this nature are construed having regard to the context and the object underlying the enactment. [378-G-H, 379-A-B] Casher v. Holmes, [109] (Kings Bench) English Reports 1263; Earl c D of Nonna11to11 v. Gilas & A11r., [1980] 1 All E.R. 106; Peterborough Royal E Foxltou11d Show Society v. Commissioner of lnla11d Revenue, 20 Tax Cases 249 and Bridge v. Parsons, [1863] 32 L.J.M.C. 95, referred to. Livestock Importation Act, 1989; "Livestock Breeding i11 India; by D. Sundaresan; "171e live stock i11 less developed Cou11tries:, FAD publication; "Penna11ent Edition of the Words & Phrases, Vol. 13, p. 407 and "Collins F Cobui/d English La11guage Dictionary:, "Genetics and A11imal Breedi11g, by Maclejowski, referred to. 1.3. Clause (xxvi) of Section (2) opens mth the word, 'livestock', but it does not stop there. Had it been so there would be no doubt that day-old G chicks or for that matter, older chicks and chicken would have certainly fallen mthin the ambit of the expression 'livestock' and would have been taxable at puchase point. But the clause proceeds further and restricts the ambit of the expression 'livestock' to demestic animals referred to therein. That is the effect of the words "that is to say". Yet again, the meaning of expression "all domestic animals" is illustrated by mentioning some of H 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.CR. A them, namely oxen, bulls, cows, buftalows, goats, sheep and horses and then ends with the word 'etc.'. This could not have been without a purpose. It could only be to indicate the type of domestic animals the Rule-making authority had in mind. (373-B-EJ Rajas
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.