2004 (1) TMI 369 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

The circumstance of the non-filing of the appeals by the State in some similar matters or the rejection of some SLPs in limine by the Supreme Court in some other similar matters by itself, cannot be held as a bar against the State in filing an SLP or SLPs in other similar matter/s where it is considered on behalf of the State that non-filing of such SLP or SLPs and pursuing them is likely to seriously jeopardise the interest of the State or public interest

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the term "livestock" under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966.

Analysis:
The controversy in the appeals revolved around the interpretation of the term "livestock" under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. The appellant, a public limited company engaged in processing and exporting marine products, challenged a demand notice for market fee on dead prawns. The appellant argued that dead prawns could not be considered "livestock" as they did not meet the definition under the Act. The State Government had issued a notification including prawns in the category of "livestock" for market fee purposes.

The appellant contended that prawns, being aquatic creatures, did not fall under the definition of "livestock" as traditionally understood. The appellant relied on the common understanding of "livestock" as animals raised for use or pleasure, typically quadrupeds. However, the State Government's notification under the Act explicitly included prawns, both live and dead, as "livestock" for market regulation.

The court examined the definitions of "animal," "prawn," and "fish" from standard dictionaries and legal provisions. It noted that prawns, though aquatic, exhibited essential attributes of animals such as life, sensation, and voluntary motion. The court also referenced a previous case concerning the interpretation of "livestock," where the term was not limited to domestic animals but encompassed animals of any description.

The appellant further argued that a previous High Court decision regarding dry fish not being classified as "livestock" should apply to prawns as well. However, the court distinguished the cases, emphasizing that the High Court had already considered and rejected this argument in the present matter. The court cited precedent to establish that the State's non-appeal in a similar case did not preclude it from challenging a different matter involving the same legal point.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions. The judgment upheld the State Government's authority to include prawns, including dead ones, under the definition of "livestock" for market fee purposes.