1974 JTR(AP) 148
1975 1 AndhWR 168 ; 1975 1 APLJ 20
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : LAKSHMAIAH
K.Srtnivasulu - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commercial fax Officer, Nellore East, Nellore. - Respondent
Decided On : 10-28-74
Livestock falls within the definition of goods under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and is therefore subject to sales tax.
Act
Referred
:ANDHRA PRADESH GENERAL SALES TAX ACT : S.2(h), S.9(g)
ANDHRA PRADESH GENERAL SALES TAX RULES : R.5
ANDHRA PRADESH GENERAL SALES TAX ACT - LIVESTOCK - WHETHER FALL UNDER GOODS - EXEMPTION UNDER G. O. MS. NO. 2193 REVENUE DATED 19-12-1961 - WHETHER AVAILABLE - ANDHRA PRADESH GENERAL SALES TAX RULES, RULE 5 - WHETHER ULTRAVIRES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, dealers in goats and sheep, challenged the assessment of sales tax on their purchases, contending that livestock did not fall within the definition of goods under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the Act). They also claimed exemption under G. O. Ms. No. 2193 Revenue dated 19-12-1961, which exempted dealers purchasing livestock for the purpose of selling the flesh thereof. Additionally, they argued that Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules was ultra vires as the rule-making authority was not empowered to fix the point of levy.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that livestock fell within the definition of goods under the Act, as goods included all kinds of movable property, and livestock was movable property. The court also held that the petitioners were not entitled to the exemption under G. O. Ms. No. 2193 Revenue dated 19-12-1961, as they did not purchase livestock for the purpose of selling the flesh thereof. Finally, the court held that Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules was intra vires and valid, as the rule-making authority was empowered to carry out the purpose of the Act, which included fixing the point of levy.
Issues: 1. Whether livestock falls under goods within the meaning of sec. 2 (h) of the Andhra Pradesh general Sales Tax Act? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the exemption contemplated under G. O. Ms. No. 2193 Revenue dated 19-12-1961? 3. Whether Rule 5 of andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules is ultravires?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of goods in the Act includes all kinds of movable property, and livestock is movable property. Therefore, livestock falls within the definition of goods under the Act. 2. The exemption under G. O. Ms. No. 2193 Revenue dated 19-12-1961 is available only to dealers who purchase livestock for the purpose of selling the flesh thereof. The petitioners did not purchase livestock for this purpose, so they are not entitled to the exemption. 3. The rule-making authority is empowered to carry out the purpose of the Act, which includes fixing the point of levy. Therefore, Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules is intra vires and valid.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with costs.
ANDHRA PRADESH GENERAL SALES TAX ACT - LIVESTOCK - WHETHER FALL UNDER GOODS - EXEMPTION UNDER G. O. MS. NO. 2193 REVENUE DATED 19-12-1961 - WHETHER AVAILABLE - ANDHRA PRADESH GENERAL SALES TAX RULES, RULE 5 - WHETHER ULTRAVIRES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, dealers in goats and sheep, challenged the assessment of sales tax on their purchases, contending that livestock did not fall within the definition of goods under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the Act). They also claimed exemption under G. O. Ms. No. 2193 Revenue dated 19-12-1961, which exempted dealers purchasing livestock for the purpose of selling the flesh thereof. Additionally, they argued that Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules was ultra vires as the rule-making authority was not empowered to fix the point of levy.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that livestock fell within the definition of goods under the Act, as goods included all kinds of movable property, and livestock was movable property. The court also held that the petitioners were not entitled to the exemption under G. O. Ms. No. 2193 Revenue dated 19-12-1961, as they did not purchase livestock for the purpose of selling the flesh thereof. Finally, the court held that Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules was intra vires and valid, as the rule-making authority was empowered to carry out the purpose of the Act, which included fixing the point of levy.
Issues: 1. Whether livestock falls under goods within the meaning of sec. 2 (h) of the Andhra Pradesh general Sales Tax Act? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the exemption contemplated under G. O. Ms. No. 2193 Revenue dated 19-12-1961? 3. Whether Rule 5 of andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules is ultravires?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of goods in the Act includes all kinds of movable property, and livestock is movable property. Therefore, livestock falls within the definition of goods under the Act. 2. The exemption under G. O. Ms. No. 2193 Revenue dated 19-12-1961 is available only to dealers who purchase livestock for the purpose of selling the flesh thereof. The petitioners did not purchase livestock for this purpose, so they are not entitled to the exemption. 3. The rule-making authority is empowered to carry out the purpose of the Act, which includes fixing the point of levy. Therefore, Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules is intra vires and valid.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with costs.
LAKSHMAIAH, J.
( 1 ) AS the two writ petitions raised common points, it is proposed to dispose of them by a common judgment. The two points raised arc: (i) Whether livesiock fall under goods wjthin the meaning of sec. 2 (h) of the Andhra Pradesh general Sales Tax Act; (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the exemption contemplated under G. O. Ms. No. 2193 Revenue dated 19-12-1961.
( 2 ) THE petitioners in both the writ petitions are dealers in goafs and sheep. For the assessment year 1969-/0. the respondent in W. P. 4419/72 Deputy commercial Tax Officer accepted the return filed by the petitionertherein and assessed him on a purchase turnover of rs. 2,43,487-75 Ps. in goats and sheep.
( 3 ) THE petitioner in W. P. 5225/72 is a dealer in goats and sheep at Kodavaluru. His business consists in purchasing locally livestock such as goats and sheep and selling them to dealers at madras who in their turn sell them to butchers in Madras. For the year 1968- 69, the Commercial Tax Officer, Nellore by his assessment order dated 9-5-1969 assessed the petitioner to tax on a net purchase turnover of Rs. 3,75,087-00 as against the purchase turnover of Rs. 3,40,839/- disclosed by the accounts of the petitioner.
( 4 ) IT is contended by both Sri S. Dasaradharama Reddi and Sri A. Mahadev learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the livestock such as goats and sheep do not fall within the definition of goods as defined in Section 2 (h) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to merely as the act ) and If it is to be so construed as falling within that definition the definition itself is ultra vires the constitution of India as it is opposed to cltfuse (12) of Art. 366 of the Constitution read with Entry 54 of List II of the seventh Schedule appended to the Constitution of India.
( 5 ) THE livestock, in order to be made the subject matter of Sales Tax must be shown as the goods within the meaning of that expression occurring in section 2 (h) of the Act which in so far as it is material reads as follows:- "2 (h) goods means all kinds of movable property other than actionable claims, stocks, shares and securities and includes all materials, articles. . . . . . "
( 6 ) SO, what is manifest from this definition is that goods means moveabie property. The State Legislature derives power to levy taxes on sale or purchase of goods on account of Arts 245 and 246 read with Entry 54 of List II of the seventh Schedule appended to the Constitution. That Entry 54 reads as follows:- "54. Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, subject to the provisions of entry 92a of List I,"
( 7 ) CLAUSE 12 of Art. 366 defines goods as including ail materials, comrr. odfties and articles. The learned coursel contend that the expression goods do not take within their ambit the expression livestock. The expression livestock though constitute movable property still it cannot be considered to be goods as defined by the Act and the expression goods do not include, according to the learned counsel, anlmace chattel which no doubt is considered as movable property. No authority was cited by the learned counsel in support of their contention that livestock are not movable property as defined in the General Clauses act or goods within the meanirg of the expression as defined in the Act. The expression movable property occurring in the Act shall have to be understood in the light of the meaning given to the expression movable property in Seccicn 3 (19) of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1891. The expression movable property is defined in the General clauses Act as meaning property of evety description except Immovable property. I am not able to find any judicial ba sis for the proposition that animate objects such as livestock could not come with in the definition of movable property. The expression goods as has already been noticed was defined by the Act ti mean all kinds of movable property. "all kinds of movable property" is comprehensive enough to include within its -ambit both animate as well as inanimate kinds of movable properties. The expresion goods as defined by Art. 366 clause (12) is an inclusive definition and the subject matter with respect to which the State Legislature has been given power to make laws by way of levying tax under Entry 54 of List II of the seventh Schedule is taxes on the sale or purchase of goods, l am, therefore, of the opinion that the livestock is movable property and the expression goods as defined in the Act includes all kinds of movable property and that expression takes within its ambit livestock which is admittedly movable property. In view of this, I do not propose to refer to the decisions cited arising from Sale of goods Act and other kindred enactments.
( 8 ) THE second submission was whether the petitioners are entitled for the exemption granted in G. O. Ms. No. 2193, revenue, dated 19-12-1961. As per that g. O. , the dealers who purchase livestock for the purpose of selling the flesh of such livestock are exempted from the levy of tax on their purchases of livestock under sub-section (I) of Section 5 of the Act with effect from 20-8-1959. The exemption as per the aforesaid notification ;s available only to those dealers who purchase the livestock for the purpose of themselves selling the flesh of such livestock. It is not the case of petitioners that they themselves slaughter the goats and sheep purchased by them for the purpose of selling the flesh thereof. They merely sell the goats and sheep purchased by them locally to he dealers at Madras who in their turn sell those animals to the butchers. Therefore, the petitioners, on their own showing, are not entitled for the exemption they claim under the aforesaid notification as it is not theircase that they purchase this livestock and slaughter the same and sell the flesh, therefore, find no merits in the contention regarding their claim for the exemption.
( 9 ) SRI A. Mahadev raised yet another point to the effect that Rule 5 of andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules is ultravires as the rule making authority was not given the power to fix the point of levy. The power to make rules is conferred on the rule making authority for the purpose of carrying out the purpose of the Act, The purpose of the Act is to levy taxes on sale or purchase of goods. That the charging provision provides. The fixation of the point for the levy of tax constitutes one of the integral steps necessary for carrying out the purpose of the Art and that power to carry out the purpose of the Act is admittedly conferred upon the rule making authority. I do not find any merit in this contention. I hold that Rule 5 is intra vires and valid. For all the aforesaid reasons, lam satisfied that there are no merits in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are therefore, dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100/- in each writ petition.