Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether one-day-old chicks fall within the expression "livestock" so as to qualify for exemption from sales tax under the relevant Government Order and the statutory power exercised under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, and whether the later specific exemption issued in 1992 implied that no exemption existed earlier.
Analysis: The exemption granted by G.O. Ms. No. 130, Revenue (CT-II) was issued in exercise of the power under section 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The decisive question was the scope of the word "livestock". The Court treated the observations in Royal Hatcheries as supporting the view that, in ordinary and popular understanding, chicks are included in livestock, and relied on dictionary meanings, published materials, and comparative authorities showing that livestock is commonly understood broadly to include poultry. The Court also held that the later notification specifically exempting one-day-old chicks did not necessarily mean that they were not already covered, because such later exemptions may be issued by way of abundant caution to remove doubt.
Conclusion: One-day-old chicks were held to fall within "livestock" for the purpose of the exemption, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit for the relevant period prior to the later notification.
Ratio Decidendi: In construing a fiscal exemption, a broadly used term such as "livestock" is to be understood in its ordinary popular sense unless the statute or notification restricts it, and a later clarificatory exemption does not by itself negate an earlier coverage already available on that construction.