Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
S. T. R. No. 11 of 1976 decided on 19th October 1985.
--S. 17 (4)‑Sales‑Tax Notification No. 7, item No. 6, dated 27‑6‑1951‑Reference‑Question of fact or law‑Question as to meaning of word "fodder" as mentioned in Notification, held, .was a question of law.
‑‑ S. 17 (4)‑Sales Tax Notification No.7, item No. 6, dated 27-6-1951‑ Words "fodder" and "feed" meaning of‑‑"Cattle feed" and 'fodder' being synonymous; even after mixing molasses and salt therein, held, were exempted from 'sales tax under item No. 6 of Notification.
Not only the words feed and fodder' are synonymous in their meaning but the meaning of the word 'fodder' has been enlarged by including in it oil‑cakes and bran. Addition of salt or molasses in fodder feed would not make any difference as any cooked dish, say: "porridge" With or without salt or milk and or sugar would still remain porridge. The intention of the law-giver by including in the word fodder' oil‑cakes and bran seems to be that anything which could be given to cattle as feed is intended to be excluded from the levy of the sales tax.
The Commissioner of Sales Tax (Central Zone) Karachi v. Pakistan Progressive Cement Industries Ltd., Karachi 1985 P T D 312: Messrs Usmania Glass Sheet Factory Chittagong v. Sales Tax Officer, Chittagong P L D 1971 S C 205; Chamber's 20th Century. Dictionary New Edition 1983, p. 461 and Oxford English Dictionary Vol. IV, p. 378 ref.
‑‑ Word "including" or expression 'shall be deemed to be included', held, were generally used to interpretation clause in order to enlarge the meaning of words and phrases occurring in body of statute.‑[Interpretation of statutes].
Messrs Usmania Glass Sheet Factory, Chittagong v. Sales Tax Officer, Chittagong P L D 1971 S C 205 ref.
Shaikh Haider for Applicant.
Nasim Farooqui for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 3rd October 1985.
--This is a reference under section 17 (4) of the Sales tax Act, 1971. The facts giving rise to this reference, are that the respon dent during the assessment year 1971‑72, sold cattle feed of the amount of Rs. 72,592 and claimed exemption under item No. 6 of the Safes Tax Notification No. 7, dated 27‑6‑1951. The Sales‑tax Officer (company Circle 'K' by the order dated 18‑3‑1974, disallowed the claim and subjected the same to sales‑tax, by holding that, the notification specifically provided exemption for fodder including oil‑cakes and bran only but the cattle feed was altogether a different preparation in which molasses and salt were mixed.
2. Aggrieved by the order the respondent filed an. appeal before the income‑tax Appellate Tribunal being Sales Tax Appeal. No. 464/KB/1973 -74. The Tribunal by its order dated 20‑6‑1974 accepted the appeal by holding that the cattle feed is synonymous to fodder 'and in support relied on 20th Century Oxford Dictionary for the meaning of the above word and phrase.
3. That the applicant filed an application under section 17 (1) of the Sales‑tax Act, 1971, requiring the. Tribunal to refer the lb1lowing question claimed to be of law to this Court for decision:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in treating the cattle feed and fodder as identical
4. The Tribunal however; by the order dated 6‑11-1975, dismissed the application holding that the question whether the cattle feed is same thing as fodder, is a question of fact and not question of law arising out of its order dated 20‑6‑1974. Therefore, the Commissioner of Sales Tax has referred .the question to this Court.
5. We have heart Mr. Shaikh Haider learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Nasim Farooqui, learned counsel for the respondent in, this case and S. T. C. Nos, 12 to 16 of 1976.
6. In this case and, the aforesaid cases only the assessment years and the amounts of the fodder sold in each year are different but the question involved in all the cases is same, and we therefore; propose to dispose of all these cases by this judgment.
7. The Tribunal rejected the application holding that what is fodder' is a question of fact and not of law. This finding in our view is not correct. What is 'fodder' could be a question of law or a question of fact or mixed question of law and fact in the context in which it is to be viewed for example, if the question is whether green grass is fodder, and if it is to be answered with reference to the law or its definition given in the law then it would be a question of law or according to the circumstances of the case, a mixed question of law and fact.
We may here, in support, infer to two cases namely, The Commissioner of Sales Tax (Central Zone), Karachi v. Pakistan Progressive Cement Industries Ltd., Karachi (1985 P T D 312) and Messrs Usmania Glass Sheet Factory Chittagong v. Sales‑tax Officer, Chittagong (P L. D 1971 SC 205).
In the first named case this Court considered the question was "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that 'fire bricks' and 'fire clay' are exempted under item No. 34 of Sales Tax Notification No. 7, dated 27‑6‑1951, This question being question of law was answered to the, extent that 'fire bricks' were exempted thereunder.
In the second above referred to case the question whether 'glass sheet' was covered by the term 'concrete building components' used in Item No. 4 of "notification No. 7.dated 27‑6‑1951,, was considered and answered upto the Supreme Court level.
Since the question referred to in the case now before us has to be 'answered in the light of the meaning of the word 'fodder' as mentioned in Item No. 6, therefore, in our view, it is a question of law. We accordingly; proceed to answer the same:
8. It was contended on behalf of the applicant by Mr. Shaikh Haider that what was produced by the respondents in respect of which they claimed exemption froth levy of sales‑tax, was the cattle; feed and not fodder. He submitted that the Sales‑tax Officer treated it as cattle feed for the reason that a was prepared by mixing molasses and. salt and was therefore, different from fodder. The Tribunal has however, held that the cattle feed and fodder are synonymous and in the opinion of the Tribunal even after mixing the molasses and salt the cattle feed could only be used by the cattle and therefore, it held that the same: was exempted under the notification.
9. The word fodder' is not defined in the Sales‑tax Act. However, in the Notification No. 7, dated 27‑6‑1951, Item No. 6, the meaning of the word 'fodder' is enlarged by including in it oil‑cakes and bran. The item reads:
"6. Fodder (including oil‑cakes and bran)."
According to the Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary, New Edition 1983, page 461; 'feed' means :‑
"Feed:‑‑‑"An allowance of provender; esp. to cattle : fodder :.feeding ; pasture : a plentiful meal :"
According to the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, New Edition 1983,page 485 fodder' means:-
"food supplied to cattle : food (slang)"
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. IV, p. 378 the word 'fodder' means:‑‑
"Food for cattle, now in a more, restricted sense: dried food, as hay; straw, etc., for stall feeding:""
According to the same Dictionary p. 130, the word 'feed' means:‑
"3.-‑Food (for cattle) ; fodder, provender.
(b) An allowance or meal (of corn, oats, etc.)
10. From the above meanings it will be seen that not only the word 'feed' and 'fodder' are synonymous in. their meaning but the meaning the word 'fodder' has been enlarged by including in it oil-cakes and bran. Addition of salt or molasses in fodder or feed would not make an difference as any cooked dish, say, "porridge" with or without salt milk and/or ‑sugar would still remain porridge. The intention of the law, giver by including in the word 'fodder' oil‑cakes and bran seems to be that anything which could be given to cattle as feed is intended to be excluded from the‑levy of the sales‑tax. It is well‑settled that the word 'including' or the expression shall be deemed to be included' is generally used in interpretation clause in order to enlarge the meaning of worth and phrases occurring in the body of the statute. See Messrs Usmania Glass Sheet, Factory, Chittagong v. The Sales Tax Officer, Chittagong.
11. We, therefore, answer the question referred to this Court in affirmative, leaving the parties to, bear their own costs in the circumstances of the case.
M.B.A. Reference answered in affirmative.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer