Judgment

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. - The appellants in this batch of appeals are Hatcheries in the State of Andhra Pradesh. They sell day-old chicks to poultry farms. The Sales Tax Authorities levied tax on the sales of day-old chicks effected by the appellants under S. 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 195. The authorities treated day-old chicks as general goods. The appellants case was that inasmuch as day-old chicks fall within Cl. (xxvi) of R. 5(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, tax must be levied at the purchase point and, therefore, no tax can be levied or collected from the appellants. The appellants contention was rejected by the authorities whereupon they approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of writ petitions disputing the levy and collection of tax upon the sale of chicks by them. They raised two contentions before the High Court, namely (I) chicks are not goods within the meaning of Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and, therefore, no tax can be levied upon the sale or purchase of chicks at all, and (2) that even if the chicks are goods, the tax is leviable at the purchase point by virtue of R. 5(2)(xxvi) of the Rules. The Division Bench of the High Court negatived both the contentions and dismissed the writ petitions.

2. In these appeals, the first contention urged before the High Court is not urged before us. The only contention urged is that chicks fall within R. 5(2)(xxvi) of the Rules and, therefore, taxable at the purchase point. For this reason, it is contended, no tax can be collected from the appellants who are the sellers.

Rule 5(2)(xxvi) reads as follows:

"(2) In the case of under-mentioned goods, the turnover of a dealer for the purposes of these Rules shall be the total amount payable by the dealer as the consideration for the purchase of goods.

(xxvi) Livestock, that is to say, all domestic animals such as, oxen, bulls, cows, buffaloes, goats, sheep, horses etc."

3. Mr. Sorabjee, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the day-old chicks sold by the appellants are livestock. They are also domestic animals. The animals mentioned in the said clause are merely illustrative but not exhaustive which is evident from the use of the word "etc." at the end of the clause. The High Court was in error in holding that only quadrupeds (four-legged animals) are included within the clause but not birds. Chicks and chicken are domestic animals, whether one looks at the dictionary meaning of animal or its technical meaning. Learned counsel cited a number of decisions, both Indian and English, in support of his contentions. On the other hand, Shri C. Sitaramiah, learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh supported the reasoning and conclusion of the High Court. Counsel submitted that the expressions occurring in a sale-tax statute should be understood in their popular sense i.e., in the sense in which the common people and the traders dealing in the said goods understand them in their daily course of business and not in their technical or scientific sense. Quite a few decisions are cited by the learned counsel to support his submissions.

4. Having regard to the relevance of the language employed in R. 5(2)(xxvi), it would be appropriate to set out the same over again here. It reads: "Livestock, that is to say, all domestic animals such as, oxen, bulls, cows, buffaloes, goats, sheep, horses etc." The clause opens with the word, livestock, but it does not stop there. Had it stopped there, there could be no doubt that day old chicks or for that matter, older chicks and chicken would have certainly fallen within the ambit of the expression livestock and would have been taxable at purchase point. But the clause proceeds further and restricts the ambit of the expression "livestock" to domestic animals referred to therein. That is the effect of the words "that is to say". The meaning and purport of the words "that is to say" is e