Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Bhagya Lakshmi Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. on 9 October, 2000
Equivalent citations: [2001]121STC218(AP)
Author: P. Venkatarama Reddi
Bench: P. Venkatarama Reddi
JUDGMENT P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.
1. These tax 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.
2. The Tribunal allowed the appeals holding that one-day-old chicks are liable to be exempted from sales tax by virtue of the exemption contained in G.O. Ms. No. 130, Revenue (CT-II) dated February 14, 1999 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 Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act"). Following the observations of the Supreme Court in Royal Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1994] 92 STC 239, the Tribunal held that the exemption was available to the assessees 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.
3. It may be stated that with effect from August 27, 1992, by-virtue of the notification issued by the Government under Section 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 prior to issuance of G.0. Ms. No. 882, Revenue (CT-II) dated August 24, 1992 the exemption was available. That depends on the question whether day-old chicks fall within the purview of livestock, which is one of the exempted items under G.O. Ms. No. 130 dated February 14, 1989.
4. The obiter dictum of the Supreme Court in Royal Hatcheries' case [1994] 92 STC 239 fully supports the contention of the respondents-assessees. 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 :
"Livestock, that is to say, all domestic animals such as oxen, bulls, cows, buffaloes, goats, sheep, horses, etc.,"
5. 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 setting 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.
6. There can be no doubt that the expression used in G.O. Ms. No. 130, which is livestock simpliciter is not the same as the livestock 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 "livestock" 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 one-day-old chicks are chicks that fall within the description of livestock. The following observations occurring in paragraph 4 of the judgment are significant :
"The clause opens with the word, 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 livestock 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."
7. In the same paragraph, after referring to the case of Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association v. State of Rajasthan , their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that "livestock" 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" takes 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.
8. 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 'livestock' in the Livestock Importation Act, 1898, the notification dated July 20, 1960, issued by the Central Government under the said Act, the text book 'Livestock Breeding in India' by D. Sundaresan and the FAO publication 'The livestock 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 detail." (Emphasis *supplied).
9. The above passages undoubtedly support the view that one-day-old chicks would answer the description of "livestock". 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 or 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".
10. 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 livestock. There is abundant authority in the form of dictionaries, publications dealing with livestock and poultry, statutory enactments concerning livestock, including the notifications issued under taxation statutes which proceed on the basis that poultry is livestock. We may refer to few of them.
11. In the dictionaries, the following meanings of "livestock" are given :
The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary defines "livestock" 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 "livestock" 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 & Forms by Six Alison Russel, page 208 "livestock" is defined as under :
"(a) Cattle, sheep, goat, swine, horses or poultry and for the purposes of this definition 'cattle' means cows, oxen, calves and 'poultry' means domestic fowls, turkey, goose or ducks.
(b) Any creature 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 "livestock" is restricted in its meaning so as to include only something which is either a mammal or a bird".
In the book 'The Livestock Industry in Less Developed Countries' published by the 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 amongst the livestock-based vocations, poultry occupies a pivotal position.
From the book "Indian Poultry Industry Year Book," it is seen that livestock census includes poultry population.
In the book published by Indian Standards Institution--"Standards on Poultry", day-old chicks is dealt with under the topic "livestock".
12. In the decision in Peterborough Royal Foxhound Show Society's case 20 Tax Cases 249 ; 2 K.B. 497, cited with approval by the Supreme Court, it was observed as follows :
"......The words 'livestock' are ordinarily and properly used in contrast 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 Saundes 'livestock' 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".
13. In Wardhough (A.F.) Ltd. v. Mace (1952) 2 All ER 28, Lord Goddard defined "livestock" as under :
"Livestock generally means live animals. If the live and dead stock on a farm are advertised for sale, 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 thought to include the poultry on the farm".
14. These dictionaries, publications on the subjects of 'livestock' and poultry and the judicial opinion, all go to show that livestock is understood in a broad sense to refer to poultry as well. Thus, even in popular understanding, livestock includes poultry.
15. 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' case [1994] 92 STC 239 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 of Madras v. Neeli Veerabhadrappa and in State of A.P. v. V.V. Rama Rao and Company [1989] 74 STC 190 may be referred to.
16. In Provincial Government's case [1950] 1 STC 245 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 under Section 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 unius will not be exclusio alterio in such cases."
17. For these reasons, we see no merit in the tax revision cases. Accordingly, the tax revision cases are dismissed. No costs.