https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287494 Dry fish was held not to fall within the statutory definition of livestock under the A. P. Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966. Applying the common parlance rule, the expression "fish" was construed as wet fish, while dry fish was treated as a distinct processed product that had lost its original identity. The notification was therefore invalid to the extent it included dry fish in the livestock schedule and was liable to be quashed. en-us Wed, 10 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Apr 2020 12:05:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287494 Dry fish was held not to fall within the statutory definition of livestock under the A. P. Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966. Applying the common parlance rule, the expression "fish" was construed as wet fish, while dry fish was treated as a distinct processed product that had lost its original identity. The notification was therefore invalid to the extent it included dry fish in the livestock schedule and was liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287494