AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.—These lax revision cases arise out of the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in a Batch of appeals. Hence they are disposed of by this common order.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals holding that on-day-old chicks are liable to be exempted from sales tax by virtue of the exemption contained in G.O. Ms. No. 130, Revenue, dated 14-2-1989 wherein livestock is one of the items exempted, in exercise of powers conferred on the Governor by Section 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sates Tax Act, 1957 (for short ''the Act'')- Following the observations of the Supreme Court in Royal Hatcheries P. Ltd. v. State of A.P. 1994 (92) STC 239 SC, the Tribunal held that the exemption was available to the assesses in respect of the relevant assessment years viz., 1988-89 to 1992-93. It is against this decision of the Tribunal; the State has preferred these revision cases.
It may be stated that with effect from 27-8-1992, by virtue of the notification issued by the Government u/s 9(1) of the Act, one-day-old chicks were specifically exempted from the tax payable under the Act. The controversy, therefore, turns on the question whether during the period to issuance of G.O. Ms. No.882, Revenue (CT-II), dated 24-8-1992 the exemption was available. That depends on the question whether day old chicks fall within the purview of live stock, which is one of the exempted items under G.O. Ms. No.130, dated 14-2-1989.
The obiter dictum of the Supreme Court in Royal Hatcherie''s case (supra) fully supports the contention of the respondents-assesses. In that case, the Supreme Court was called upon to interpret item XXVI of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short ''the Rules''), which reads as follows:
"Live-stock, that is to say, all domestic animals such as oxen, bulls, cows, buffaloes, goats, sheep, horses, etc."
The Supreme Court posed the question whether the chicks can be called as domestic animals so as to fall within the purview of the said clause. After referring to the well known principle of construction of entries in a taxing statute, Their Lordships recorded the conclusion that in popular and in common parlance, day old chicks or for that matter, chicks-are not referred to or understood as ''animals'', though in its literal sense, the word ''animal'' refers to any and every ''animate'' object as distinct from ''inanimate'' objects. In popular sense, chicks are referred to as ''birds'' not as ''animals''. The Supreme Court then referred to the selling of the words employed in clause XXVI of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules and held that only domestic animals of the type mentioned therein - i.e., quadrupeds alone are encompassed within the scope of clause. To hold otherwise, the Supreme Court pointed out, would be to depart from and ignore the ordinary popular connotation of the words ''domestic animals'' besides doing violence to the spirit and structure of the clause. The Supreme Court then observed that if ''birds'' are also included in the clause, the very purpose of giving illustrations disappears and the reference to the particular animals in the clause would become superfluous. On this reasoning, the Supreme Court held that one day old chicks or for that matter ''animals'', which are non-quadrupeds do not fall within the scope of clause XXVI of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules.
There can be no doubt that the expression used in G.O.Ms.No.130, which is livestock simplicitor is not the same as the live-stock described in item XXVI of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5. According to the interpretation placed by the Supreme Court, item XXVI restricts the sweep and ambit of expression ''live stock'' to certain types of domestic animals and nothing more. But, we are concerned here with the omnibus expression ''livestock''. The observations made by the Supreme Court in that very case unequivocally indicate that on-day-old chicks are chicks that fall within the description of live stock. The following observations occurring in paragraph 4 of the judgment are significant:
".....The clause opens with the words, "livestock", but it does not stop there. Had it stopped there, there could be no doubt that day old chicks or for that matter, older chicks and chicken would have certainly fallen within the ambit of the expression "live stock" and would have been taxable at purchase point. But the clause proceeds further and restricts the ambit of the expression "livestock" to domestic animals referred to therein"
In the same paragraph, after referring to the case of Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association v. State of Rajasthan (1993) 91 STC 408 : (1993)9 JT 138, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that ''live stock" is ordinarily confined to domestic animals as held in Peterborough Royal Foxhound Show Society v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue 20 Tax Cases 249, the word "livestock" taken in ''animals'' of any description, but the rule-making authority chose to limit the meaning of ''live stock'' in the said clause only to domestic animals mentioned therein.
The observations in paragraph 7 of the judgment also deserve notice, which reads as follows:
"Besides Peterborough Royal Foxhound Show Society v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue 20 Tax Cases 249, Mr. Sorabjee brought to our notice the definition of "live stock" in the Live Stock Importation Act, 1898, the notification dated July, 20, 1960, issued by the Central Government under the said Act, the text book "Live-stock Breeding in India" by D. Sundaresan and the FAO publication "The live-stock in less developed countries" in support of the proposition that day old chicks are livestock. Inasmuch as there is no quarrel with the said proposition, it is not necessary to refer to them in any details.''"
The above passages undoubtedly support the view that one-day-old chicks would answer the description of ''live stock''. Learned Government Pleader, however places reliance on the observations made at paragraph 14 of the judgment and contended that in popular and common parlance, day old chicks-or for that matter, chicks-are not referred to understood as "animals", though in its literal sense, the word "animal" refers to any and every "animate" object as distinct from inanimate objects. We do not think that the Supreme Court has stated anything contrary to what was expressed in the earlier paragraphs. In paragraph 14 of the judgment, the Supreme Court, inter alia, addressed itself to the question whether the chicks, which are commonly known as birds, are animals. The answer given was in the negative. Nowhere it was observed that the chicks are not "livestock".
Apart from the obiter dictum of the Supreme Court, we may independently consider the question whether chicks which belong to the category of poultry are live stock. There is abundant authority in the form of dictionaries, publications dealing with live stock and poultry, statutory enactment''s concerning live stock, including the notifications issued under taxation statutes which proceed on the basis that poultry is live stock. We may refer to few of them.
In the dictionaries, the following meanings of ''livestock'' are given:
"The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary defines ''live stock'' as under:
"Domesticated animals, especially sheep, cattle, pigs and poultry, kept for the production of meat, milk, wool etc., or for breeding purposes".
Black''s Agricultural Dictionary II Edition defines "live stock" to mean "domesticated animals such as cattle, horses, pigs, poultry sheep etc.
In Venkataramaiya''s Law Lexicon with Legal maxims II Edition refers to the publication titled Legislative Drafting and Farms by Six Alison Russet, P.208 ''livestock'' is defined as under:
"(a) Cattle, Sheep, goat, swine, horses or poultry and the purposes of this definition ''cattle'' means cows, oxen, calves and ''poultry'' means domestic fowls, turkey, goose or ducks.
(b) Any crature kept for the production of food, wool, skin, fur or for the purposes of its use in the farming by man.
Livestock includes; horse, cattle, sheep, goats, swine, mules, donkey and poultry".
In Ramanatha Aiyer''s Law Lexicon, it is said that "Live stock" is restricted in its meaning so as to include only something which is either a mammal or a bird".
In the book ''The Live stock Industry in less developed countries'' published by Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, poultry industry is also dealt with.
In the Foreword to the book ''Indian Poultry Industry Year Book'', 10th Edition published by Government of India, it is stated that amongest the live stock-based vocations, poultry occupies a pivotal position.
From the book ''Indian Poultry Industry Year book'', it is seen that live stock census includes poultry population.
In the book published by Indian Standards Institution - ''Standards on Poultry'', day-old chicks is dealt with under the topic ''live stock''.
In the decision in Peterborough Royal Foxound Show Society''s case 20 Tax Cases 249 : 2 KB 497, cited with approval by the Supreme Court, it was observed as follows:
".....The words "live stock" are ordinarily and properly used in contract with dead stock and include all live animals and birds the breeding of which is regulated by man".
In the Words and Phrases Legally defined by Saiondes ''live stock'' is defined as "cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses, or poultry and for the purposes of this definition ''cattle; means bulls, cows, oxen, heifers or calves, ''horses'' includes asses and mules, and ''poultry'' means domestic fowls, turkeys, geese or ducks".
In Wardhough (A.F.) Ltd. v. Mace (1952) 2 AER 28, Lord Goddard defined ''live stock'' as under:
"Livestock generally means live animals. If the live and dead stock of a farm are advertised for sate, everybody knows what that means. The dead stock are implements the livestock are the animals on the farm and I should think that in the great majority of cases at any rate it would include and would be though to include the poultry on the farm".
These dictionaries, publications on the subjects of ''livestock'' and poultry and the judicial opinion, all go to show that livestock is undertook in a broad sense to refer to poultry as well. Thus, even in popular understanding, livestock includes poultry.
The mere fact that by a subsequent notification issued in August, 1992, the State Government specifically exempted the sales turnover of one day old chicks from the liability to pay tax, does not necessarily mean that one day old chicks were not exempted earlier. The issuance of subsequent notification may well be consistent with the object of the State Government to put the matter beyond doubt and to give quietus to the possible litigation, more so, in the background of the view taken by the Supreme Court in Royal Hatcheries''s case (supra)and the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court. Such notification specifically exempting a commodity or amending a schedule by way of abundant caution is not unknown to the history of Legislation. If any authority is noted for this proposition, the decisions of a Division Bench of Madras High Court in Provincial Government v. Veerabhadrappa, AIR 1950 Mad. 521 and in The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. V.V. Rama Rao and Company, , may be referred to.
In Provincial Government''s case (supra) Mr. Justice Viswanatha Sastri, pithily expressed, the purport of a clarificatory provision in a taxing statute in the following words :
"The marginal note to Section 8 is "licensing and exemption of agents" and it is argued that the exemption granted in Section 8 would be meaningless if agents were not included in the category of "dealers" as defined in Section 2 (b) and made chargeable u/s 3. From the exemption provided for by Section 8 a positive provision levying a charge is, in effect, sought to be inferred or implied. In construing a taxing enactment, very little weight attaches to the argument that because a specific exemption from tax is found in it, other cases not specifically exempted must be deemed to have been charged to tax. Such exemptions are often introduced under the influence of excessive caution to quiet the fears of the timid and the unduly apprehensive. Expressio unis will not be exclusio criteria in such cases."
For these reasons, we see no merit in the lax revision cases. Accordingly, the tax revision cases are dismissed. No costs.