1980 (4) TMI 285 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Tapioca Thippi Dust Not Cattle Feed: Tax Revision Case Allowed

State of Tamil Nadu Versus Kasiraja

The Court held that tapioca thippi dust and the mixture of molasses with tapioca thippi dust do not qualify as cattle feed under the notification issued ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether tapioca thippi dust and the mixture of molasses with tapioca thippi dust are articles of cattle feed falling within the scope of the notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu under section 17(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of 'Cattle Feed' in the NotificationThe core issue was whether tapioca thippi dust and the mixture of molasses with tapioca thippi dust qualify as articles of cattle feed under the notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu on 4th March 1974. The notification exempts certain items from tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, specifically mentioning:'In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1959), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes an exemption in respect of the tax payable by any dealer under the said Act on the sale of- (2) Cattle feed, namely, hay or straw or rice bran or wheat bran or husk and dust of pulses and grams, but excluding- (i) brokens of pulses and grams; (ii) oil-cakes; and (iii) cotton seeds.'The Tribunal initially concluded that tapioca thippi dust and its mixture with molasses are cattle feed covered by the notification and thus exempt from tax. This conclusion was challenged by the State, which argued that the notification only covers the enumerated items of cattle feed mentioned therein.Interpretation of 'Namely'The Court examined the use of the word 'namely' in the notification. It referenced a previous judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-1 v. Arasan Fertilisers (P.) Ltd. [1978] 114 I.T.R. 802, where the term 'namely' was interpreted restrictively. The Court pointed out that the word 'namely' is used to indicate what is included in the preceding term, thus restricting the meaning to the enumerated items.The Court cited various authoritative sources and dictionaries to substantiate the restrictive interpretation of 'namely.' For instance, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary differentiates between 'namely' and 'including,' stating that 'namely' imports interpretation and restricts the meaning, whereas 'including' imports addition.Legislative and Governmental Usage of Different ExpressionsThe Court noted that both the legislature and the Government use different expressions like 'namely,' 'for example,' and 'such as' in different contexts. This indicates that these expressions are not used interchangeably but deliberately to either restrict or expand the meaning of the preceding term. The Court provided multiple examples from the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and various government notifications to illustrate this point.Exclusion Clause and Its ImplicationsThe respondent's counsel argued that the exclusion of certain items (brokens of pulses and grams, oil-cakes, and cotton seeds) from the notification implies that the term 'cattle feed' should be interpreted broadly. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the exclusion might have been made ex abundanti cautela (out of abundant caution) and does not necessarily broaden the scope of the term 'cattle feed.'ConclusionThe Court concluded that the term 'cattle feed' in the notification is restricted to the enumerated items following the word 'namely.' Consequently, tapioca thippi dust and the mixture of molasses with tapioca thippi dust do not fall within the scope of the notification and are not exempt from tax. The tax revision case was allowed, and the Tribunal's order was set aside, with no order as to costs.Petition allowed.