Common parlance test excludes prawn from "fish," preventing purchase tax under the sales tax schedule entry.

The meaning of "fish" in the purchase-tax schedule entry was construed in its common commercial sense because the Act did not define the term. Evidence from traders, catchers, consumers and lease documents showed that fish and prawn were understood and dealt with as distinct commodities, and a later notification also separately referred to prawns. On that basis, prawn was held not to be included within "fish" in the relevant entry, so purchase tax could not be levied on prawn under section 3-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.

---

---

Issues: Whether prawn falls within the expression "fish" in the schedule entry attracting purchase tax under section 3-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Analysis: The classification turned on the meaning of "fish" in common parlance, since the Act did not define the term. The evidence from traders, catchers, consumers, and lease documents showed that fish and prawn were separately understood and dealt with as distinct commodities. The later notification expressly distinguished fish from prawns, supporting the understanding that the two were not the same commodity. On the evidence and in ordinary commercial usage, prawn could not be treated as a variety of fish.

Conclusion: Prawn was not included in the expression "fish" in the relevant entry, and purchase tax could not be levied on prawn under section 3-B.

---