STATE OF ORISSA Vs. CIFOODS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, Orissa, has stated this case under section 24 (1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "act"), and referred the following question for opinion of the court :

(2.) THE assessee is a registered dealer and we are concerned with two years, being 1972-73 and 1973-74. With effect from 1st February, 1959, fish became taxable under section 3-B of the Act at the purchase point, the rate prescribed being 3 per cent. From 26th December, 1967, the rate of tax was reduced to 2 per cent. The assessee took the stand that prawn was not fish and, therefore, the purchase of prawn was not exigible to tax. In second appeal this question was examined at length and it was contended that prawn was not fish and to support this submission the assessee filed affidavits of catchers, trader and middlemen. The assessee also produced lease deeds granted by the revenue officials of the State where prawn and fish were separately indicated. In fact, the same area was subjected to one lease for fish and another for prawn. In second appeal the Tribunal referred to the dictionary meaning of "fish" and "prawn" and found that the two items were distinct from each other. Since there was no definition of the word "fish ", the Additional Tribunal tried to find out the common parlance meaning of "prawn". In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Tejco Industries [1976] 38 STC 93, the court observed :