1981 (10) TMI 159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), and referred the following question for opinion of the court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal is correct in deciding that prawn is not included in the expression 'fish' appearing in entry serial No. I of the schedule relating to levy of purchase tax over goods notified un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y indicated. In fact, the same area was subjected to one lease for fish and another for prawn. In second appeal the Tribunal referred to the dictionary meaning of "fish" and "prawn" and found that the two items were distinct from each other. Since there was no definition of the word "fish", the Additional Tribunal tried to find out the common parlance meaning of "prawn". In the case of Commissione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ght to be maintained by clarifying to the aforesaid effect. 3.. It may be true that in certain areas prawn is also loosely said to be a kind of fish. But in this case sumptuous evidence has been placed on record coming from people in the trade, actual catchers and consumers to show that fish and prawn have always been treated as two different commodities and prawn has not been treated as one va....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sh are two different classifications. Qualitatively, fish and prawn are two different commodities and on the evidence placed, the Additional Tribunal was justified in holding that even in the common parlance they were understood as two different items. There was no scope for one item to pass for the other. Once this is the conclusion, it must follow that the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, ....