1993 (2) TMI 322

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....luding dry fish) other than canned fish". 2.. The petitioner-assessee is a dealer in prawns, during the relevant assessment year 1979-80. The question arose whether the petitioner-assessee could get the benefit of the aforesaid G.O. The contention of the petitionerassessee was that prawns is a type of fish and hence the assessee's turnover of prawns was exempted from operation of sales tax. The authorities below including the Tribunal took the contrary view and held that prawns are not fish. So far as the Tribunal was concerned, it relied upon a decision of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, in State of Orissa v. Cifoods Limited [1982] 50 STC 152, which, we are told is, later followed by the same High Court in the decision in C.I. Food....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....expressly excluded from September 3, 1976, by G.O. Ms. No. 999, Revenue dated September 3, 1976, was brought back under the connotation of the term "fish". It was therefore, submitted that the assessee's contention should be upheld. 3.. Having given our anxious considerations to the rival contentions, we have reached the conclusion that it is not possible to agree with the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee, for obvious reasons while applying a common parlance test it cannot be seriously contended that fish and prawns are one and the same commodity. If a lay man were to ask for fish in the market and if prawn is provided he would promptly refuse it and vice versa. Fish and prawns are separate commodi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he year 1989. We are concerned with the period prior thereto. Hence this express notification exempting prawns from operation of the Act would not be of any avail to the petitioner-assessee. The petitioner-assessee has therefore rightly tried to clutch at G.O. Ms. No. 1091, Revenue, dated June 10, 1957, wherein by entry No. 9 "Fish (including dry fish) other than canned fish" were mentioned, and valiant attempt was made to show to us that fish would include prawns. As we have already discussed earlier, it is not possible to agree with this contention as fish and prawns are understood to be distinct commercial commodities. 5.. So far as the reliance placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of....