Popular parlance test for taxing goods confines "livestock" to the class indicated by the rule; day-old chicks are excluded.

In sales tax classification, the expression "livestock" in Rule 5(2)(xxvi) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules is confined by the limiting words "that is to say" and the illustrative list of domestic quadrupeds that follows. The term must be understood in its popular and common parlance sense, not in a broad scientific sense; on that basis, day-old chicks are regarded as birds, not animals, and do not fall within the rule. The rule therefore cannot be enlarged beyond the class actually indicated by its wording and illustrations, and the sale of day-old chicks was taxable accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Whether day-old chicks sold by hatcheries fall within clause (xxvi) of Rule 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules as "livestock" and "domestic animals", so as to be taxable at the purchase point and not on sale by the seller.

Analysis: The expression "livestock" in the clause is controlled by the words "that is to say", which are words of limitation, and is confined to the domestic animals specifically contemplated by the rule. The rule proceeds by illustration, mentioning oxen, bulls, cows, buffaloes, goats, sheep and horses, all of which are domestic quadrupeds. In sales tax enactments, such expressions are to be understood in their popular and common parlance sense, not in any broad literal or scientific sense. In that sense, chicks are understood as birds and not as animals. Accepting the wider construction would make the illustrations redundant and would disregard the structure and object of the clause.

Conclusion: Day-old chicks do not fall within clause (xxvi) of Rule 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules and are not taxable at the purchase point on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The levy of tax on the sale of day-old chicks by the appellants was upheld and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a taxing provision, words describing goods must be construed in their popular and common parlance sense, and where a rule uses limiting language and illustrative examples, the category cannot be enlarged beyond the class actually indicated by the rule.

---