Holding

Prawns are classified as fish and therefore as livestock under the Act, making the State's notification and the levy of market fees valid.

Summary

J.T.C. Ltd., a company that purchases dead prawns, processes and exports them, was served a notice under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 demanding market fees for prawns classified as livestock. The company challenged the fee, arguing that prawns, especially dead ones, are not livestock and that the State could not issue a notification covering them. The Supreme Court examined the definition of "livestock" in the Act, the State's power under Section 3 to notify categories, and the inclusion of prawns within the definition of "fish" under the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981. It held that prawns are animals and, by statutory definition, fall within livestock, making the State's notification valid and the market fee payable. The Court also rejected the argument that a prior High Court decision on dry fish barred the State from raising the issue now, citing no legal bar. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether prawns, including dead prawns, fall within the definition of "livestock" under Section 2(v) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966.
Whether the State Government was competent to issue a notification under Section 3 of the Act covering prawns and levy market fees under Section 12.
Whether the principle that a revenue authority is bound by an unappealed High Court decision (as in Sri Lakshmi Dry Fish Traders) applies to the present case.

Legislation cited

Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981s. 2(b)

Subjects

livestock definitionmarket feeprawn classificationAgri‑Produce & Livestock Markets Actnotification powerMaritime Zones Actappeal dismissed

Judgment

l.T:C. LTD. A
v.·
THE PERSON INCHARGE, AGRICULTURAL
MARKET COMMITTEE, KAKINADA AND ORS.

JANUARY 30, 2004
B
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]

Agricultural Produce:

}
Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966- C
Sections 3 and 12-State Government not(ftcation regulating purchase and
sale of livestock, classifj1ing live prawns including prawns with or without life
in any form, in fish group-Company engaged in purchasing dead prawns,
thereafter processing and exporting them-levy ofmarket fee-Plea that prawn
not livestock, thus market fee not leviable-Justiflcation of-Held: Prawn falls D
within the definition offish in the Maritime Act having all attributes of animal,
hence a lirestock and Company liable to pay market fee-Maritime Zones <?l
India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981-Section 2(b).

) State Government issued notification under Section 3 of the Andhra
Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 for E
regulating purchase and sale of live stock classifying in different groups
where live prawn including prawn with or without life in any form are
included in fish group.

Appellant-company is engaged in business of purchase of dead
prawns, processing and exporting them to various countries under a F
licence issued under the Act. Appellant was served notice demanding
market fee and it filed writ petition challenging the same. High Court
dismissed the writ petition relying on its earlier judgment of Division
Bench in similar matters. Hence the present appeals.

Appellant contended that in common parlance prawn with or without G
life is not treated as 'livestock' and so the State Government could not
have issued any notification under Section 3 of the Act and demand market
fee for the same; that since animal is always a quadruped, creature, prawn
in not an animal and consequently not a livestock; that on the basis of Sri
19 H
A
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R.

Lakshmi Dry Fish Traders v. State of A. P. 's,case even if fish is considered
to be an animal, dry fish cannot fall within the sweep of the definition
-
'livestock' and thus, 'dry ~sh' could not be included in Schedule II thereof;
and since the State Government did not file an appeal against the said
decision, ·it is not open to the State Government to contend now that prawn
with or without life is livestock.
B
Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Normally, in common parlance animal is understood as
a quadruped creature but fish is also an animal but of different kind.
C Prawn is included in the definition of fisll'Under Section 2(b) of Maritime
Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1987 and
has all the essential attributes of an animal, viz., life, sensation and
voluntary motion. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that prawn is not a
livestock. Thus, the State Government is fully competent to issue a
notification regarding prawns under Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh
D (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 ,whereunder live
prawns including prawns with or without life in any form has been
notified. The commodity which the appellant purchases namely dead
prawns, which after processing is exported to various countries are clearly
included in the notification issued by the State Government. Further,
Section 12 of the Act which is the charging section, empowers the Market \

E Committee to levy fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or
products of livestock purchased or sold in the notified market area, hence
the appellant is liable to pay market fee. 125-D-E; 24-A-Bf

Royal Hatcheries Pvt. ltd. v. State of A.P.. 119941 Supp. I SCC 429,
referred to.
F
Peterborough Royal Foxhound Show Society v. l.R.C., I193611 All ER
813, referred to.

1.2. _The principle laid down in Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan
G Dalal and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Narender Doshi's case that where
the High Court decides the matter on the basis of an earlier judgment and
the Revenue does not challenge the same by filing an appeal, the revenue
must, therefore, be bound by the principle laid down therein and it is not
open to the Revenue to accept that judgment in the case of assessee and
challenge its correctness in the case of other assessee without just cause,
H is not applicable to the instant case since in Sri lashmi Dry Fish Traders 's
~
J.T.C. LTD. 1•. PERSON JNCHARGE, AGRJCUL TURAL MKT. COMMITTEE [G.P. MA THUR, .I.] 21
..... ~ case, Hie challenge was to the notification by which dry fish was included A
in the Schedule and did not relate to prawns with or without life and that
the High Court in the instant case has considered the contention of the
appellant and has expressly rejected it holding in favour of State
Government and it is the appellant which is coming up in appeal to this
Court. 126-C-D-El
B
Sri Las/1111i D1y Fish Traders v. State ofA.P., AIR (1986) AP 330; Union
of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal, 249 ITR 219 and Commissioner of
Income Tax v. Narender Doshi, 254 ITR 606, distinguished.

State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, 119951 4 SCC 683, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5321 of 1997.
c
f
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.1997 of the Andhra Pradesh
-'·• High Court in W.P. No. 24276 of 1995.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 5204/97 and 4803 of 1999. D
S. Ganesh, C.R. Sridharan, Rajan Narain, Shirin Khajuria, Ms. Puja
Sharma, Rajib Sankar Roy, Abhijit Sengupta, K. Ram Kumar and B. Sridhar
for the appearing parties.

' The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.P. MA TH UR, J. 1. The controversy raised in all these appeals is
E

similar and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.
We will state the facts of Civil Appeal No. 5321 of 1997. The appellant is
a public limited company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956
having its registered office at Calcutta. It is engaged in the business of F
processing and exporting of marine products and for that purpose it has
established a branch office at Kakinada in the State of Andhra Pradesh, from
where it carries on the business activities in respect of prawns. The appellant
purchases dead prawns from various locations like Bhimili, Vizag, Vakapadu,
Bhimavaram, Kakinada, Narsapur, Kodur, Nagayalanka, Machilipatnam, G
Repalla, Amalapuram in the State of Andhra Pradesh and after getting them
processed, exports the same to various countries. The appellant had obtained
licenses from the respondents under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce
& Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for
carrying on its business activity in the aforesaid places. A demand notice
dated 26th September, 1995 was served upon the appellant demanding payment H
A
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R.

of market fee wherein it was nientioned that if the market fee was not paid,
interest at the rate of I 2 ·per cent per annum shall be charged, apart from
prosecution being launched for violation of Sections 12(1) and 12(a) and (3)
-
of the Act, which entails punishmwt upto one year R.I. and a fine of Rs.
5,000. The appellant challenged the notice demanding market fee by filing
B writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court which dismissed the same by
the order dated I 8.2. I 997 relying up0n an earlier detailed judgment dated
I 7.4. I 996 of a Division Bench of the same Court given in a batch of writ
petitions and writ appeals.

2. Shri S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has submitted
C that the activities carried on by the appellant were not covered by the provisions
of the Act inasmuch as dead and dried prawns purchased by the appellant
could not be considered to be 'livestock' within the meaning of Section 2(v)
of the Act. The word 'livestock' meant and implied the continued existence
of life and that once life ceased, the thing could no longer be considered to
be 'livestock' and consequently could not, in law, be notified as 'livestock'
D under Section 2(v) of the Act. At any rate, the Government could declare
animals alone as livestock for the purpose of the Act and as live or dead or
dried prawns were not animals within the meaning of Section 2(v) of the Act,
it is urged, they could not be notified as 'livestock' under the aforesaid
provision. Learned counsel has submitted that the inclusion of prawns in the
E Schedule to the Act as 'livestock' was illegal and ultra vires and, therefore,
no market fee could be demanded from the appellant.

3. In order to examine the contention raised by learned counsel for the
appellant, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Andhra
Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and the
F notification issued thereunder. As the Preamble shows, the Act has been
enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the regulation of purchase
and sale of agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock and the
establishment of markets in connection therewith. Section 2 of the Act gives
the definitions and sub~sections (v), (ix), (x) and (xv) thereof read as under:

G (v) 'Livestock' means cows, buffaloes, bullocks, bulls, goats and
sheep, and includes poultry, fish and such other animals as may
be declared by the Government by notification to be livestock )

for the purposes of this Act;

(ix) 'notification' means a notification published in the Andhra
H Pradesh Gazette, and the word 'notified' shall be construed
1.T.C. LTD. v. PERSON INCHARGE, AGRICULTURAL MKT. COMMITIEE (G.P. MATHUR, J.l 23
accordingly; A
(x) 'notified agricultural produce. livestock or products of lives\o<"-k'
means agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock
specified in the notification under Section 3;
(xv) 'products of livestock' means such products of livestock as may
be declared by the Government by notification, to be products of B
livestock for the purposes ofthis Act.

Sub-section (I) of Section 3 provides that the Government may publish
in such manner, as may be prescribed, a draft notification declaring their
intention of regulating the purchase and sale of such agricultural produce, C
livestock or products of livestock in such area as may be specified in such
notification. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 provides that after the expiry of the
period specified in the draft notification and after considering such objections
and suggestions as may be received before such expiration, the Government
may publish in such manner as may be prescribed a final notification declaring
the area specified in the draft notification or any portion thereof, to be a D
notified area for the purposes of this Act in respect of any agricultural produce,
livestock and products of livestock specified in the draft notification. Sub-
section (4) of Section 4 lays down that as soon as may be after the
establishment ofa market under sub-section (3), the Government shall declare
by notification the market area and such other area adjoining thereto as may
be specified in the notification, to be a notified market area for the purposes E
of this Act in respect of any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products
of livestock.

4. The State Government has issued notifications declaring their intention
of regulating the purchase and sale of different kinds of agricultural produce,
F
live stock and products of Live Stock which have been broadly classified as
agricultural group, fruit group, vegetable group, fish group, live stock group,
poultry group etc. The notification regarding the Fish Group includes the
following items:

I. Live fish including fish with or without life in any form. G
2. Dry Fish.
3. Live prawn including prawn with or without life in any form.
4. Dry Prawn.

Section 3 of the Act confers power upon the Government to issue H
I
l'
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] 2 S.C.R.
A notificati.on declaring their intention of regulating the purchase and sale of
such agncult.ural ~roduce, livestock or products of livestock in such area as
'.nay be s~ec1fi~d m such notification. The Andhra Pradesh Government has
1~sue.d not1ficat1011, whereunder live prawns including prawns with or without
life m any form -has been not~fied. The commodity which the appellant
B purch~ses namely dead prawns, which after processing is exported to various
countries are clearly included in the notification issued by the Sate Government. I
)
.
In view of Section I2 of the Act which is the charging section and empowers
the Market Committee to levy fees on any notified agricultural produce,
livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the notified market
area, the appellant is liable to pay market fee.
c 5. Learned counsel has next submitted that the State Government can
issue a notification under Section 3 of the Act only with regard to livestock
or products of livestock. In common parlance prawn with or without life is
·not treated as 'livestock' and, therefore the State Government, it is submitted,
could not have issued any notification for the same. According to learned
D counsel the normal meaning of the word 'livestock' is as under :
"Animals of any kind kept or raised for use or pleasure; especially :
meat and dairy cattle and draft animals-opposed to dead stock."

. Learned counsel has also submitted that animal is always a quadruped \
E and therefore ·prawn is not an animal and consequently it is not a livestock
regarding which a notification could be issued by the State Government
under Section 3 of the Act.

6. To test the argument it will be convenient to reproduce the meaning
of the word animal, prawn and fish given in some standard dictionaries
F which is as under :

Animal: An organised being having life, sensation and voluntary
motion; - typically distinguished from a plant, which is
organised and has life, but apparently not sensation or
vot'untary motion.
G
Prawn : I. A small long-tailed decapod marine crustacean (palxmon
senatus), larger than a shrimp, common off the coast of Britain
and used as food.

2. Any of numerous decapod crustaceans that have slender legs,
H
1.T.C. LTD. 1•. PERSON INCHARGE. AGRICULTURAL MKT. COMMIHEE(G.1'. ~1.-\TI IUR, J.J 25

long antennae, a large strong compressed abdomen. and a A
prominent serrated rostrum, are widely distributed in fresh
and salt waters in warm and temperate regions and highly
esteemed as food, and vary in size from an inch or so to the
size of lobster

Fish : A ve1tebrate cold-blooded animal with gills and fins living B
wholly in water. An animal living wholly in water e.g.
cuttlefish, shellfish, jellyfish.

Section 2(b) of The Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by
Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981 also defines fish, which is as under :
c
"2(b)"Fish" means any aquatic animal, whether piscine or not, and
includes shell fish, crustacean, molluses, turtle (chelonia), aquatic
mammal (the young, fry, eggs and spawn thereof), holothurians,
coelenterates, sea weed, coral (Porifera) and any other aquatic life."

Normally, in common parlance animal is understood as a quadruped D
creature but fish is also an animal but of different kind. Prawn is included in
the definition of fish as given in the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of
Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act and has all the essential attributes of an
animal, viz., life, sensation and voluntary motion. It is therefore not possible
to accept the contention that prawn is not a livestock. The State Government E
is thus fully competent to issue a notification regarding prawns under Section
3 of the Act.
.;
• 7. Shri Ganesh has also referred to a decision of this Cou1t in Royal
Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of A.P. [1994] Supp. I SCC 429 in support of
his submission that prawns with or without life cannot be treated as livestock. F
The case turned on the interpretation of Rule 5(2)(xxvi) of A.P. General
Sales Tax Rules, 1957 which used. the expression "livestock, that is to say,
all domestic animals such as, oxen, bulls,, cows, buffaloes, goats, sheep,
horses etc." This Court held that the words "that is to say" are words of
limitation and, therefore, the livestock contemplated by the said clause becomes
confined to the domestic animals referred to in the said clause and would not G
include day-old chicks sold by the hatcheries. In fact after referring to
Peterborough Royal Foxhound Show Society v. l.R.C., [1936] 1 All ER 813,

-· wherein it was held that the word 'livestock' takes within its fold animals of
any description, it was observed that ordinarily speaking 'livestock' is not
confined to domestic animals. Therefore, the authority cited by the learned H
26 SUPREME COURT RE~.ORTS {2004) 2 S.C.R.

A counsel does not support his contention in any manner.
8. Learned counsel has lastly submitted that in Sri lashmi Dry Fish
Traders v. State of A.P., AIR (1986) AP 330, a Division Bench of Andhra
Pradesh High Court had held that even if fish is considered to be ao animal,
dry fish cannot fall within the sweep of the definition of 'livestock' and,
B therefore, 'dry fish' could not be included in Schedule II thereof. Learned
counsel has urged that the State of Andhra Pradesh accepted the verdict of
the High Court and did not choose to file an appeal against the said decision
and, therefore, it is not open to the State Government to contend now that
prawn with or without life is livestock. In support of this submission, reliance
C is placed upon Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal, 249 ITR 219
and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606. In these
cases, it was held that where the High Court decides the matter on the basis
of an earlier judgment, which decision had not been challenged by the Revenue
by filing an appeal, the Revenue must, ·therefore, be bound by the principle
laid down therein and it is not open to the Revenue to accept that judgment
D . in the case of the assessee in that case and challenge its correctness in the
case of other assessecs ·without just cause. On the' aforesaid principle this
Court declined to consider the correctness of the decision of the High Cou11
in the matter before it.

9. In our opinion, the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions has
E no application here. Firstly, in Sri Lashmi Dry Fish Traders (supra), the
challenge was to the notification by which dry fish was included in the
Schedule and did not relate to prawns with or without life. Secondly, the
High Court in the present case has considered this contention and has expressly
rejected it holding in favour of State Government and it is the appellant
F which is coming up in appeal to this Court. In Stale of Maharashtra v.
Digambar, (1995)' 4 SCC 683, a three Judge Bench had expressly repelled
such a contention and had held that non filing of an appeal in one matter
would not act as a bar· against the State in filing appeal in another matter
where similar point may be involved. The· Court, ruled as under :

G "The circumstances of the non-filing of the appeals by the State in
some similar matters or the rejection of some SLPs in limine by the
Supreme Court in some other similar matters by itself, cannot be held
as a bar against the State in filing an SLP or SLPs in other sirtlilar
matter/s where it is considered on behalf of the State that non-filing
of such SLP or SLPs and pursuing them is likely to seriously jeopardise
H
l.T.C. LTD. i-. PERSON INCHARGE, AGRICULTURAL MKT. COMMITIEE [G.P. MATHUR, J.J 27

the interest of the State or public interest." A
Therefore, the contention raised has absolutely no substance.

For the reasons discussed above, the appeals lack merits and are hereby
dismissed.
B
NJ. Appeals dismissed.

,, ·'