Case: I T C Ltd Vs. Person Incharge, Agrl Mkt.Commtt.

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 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 voluntary motion. Prawn: 1. 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, long antennae, a large strong compressed abdomen, and 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 vertebrate cold-blooded animal with gills and fins living 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: "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 creature but fish is also an animal but of different kind. Prawn in 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 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 Court in Royal Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of A.P. 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 429 in support of his submission that prawns with or without life cannot be treated as livestock. 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 include day-old chicks sold by the hatcheries. In fact after Referring to Peterborough Royal Foxhound Show Society vs. I.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 counsel does not support his contention in any manner. 8. Learned counsel has lastly submitted that in Shri Lashmi Dry Fish Traders vs. 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 an animal, dry fish cannot fall within the sweep of the definition of livestock and, 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 is placed upon Union of India vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal 249 ITR 219 and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. 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 in the case of the assessee in that case and challenge its correctness in the case of other assessee without just cause. On the aforesaid principle this Court declined to consider the correctness of the decision of the High Court in the matter before it. 9. In our opinion, the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions has 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 which is coming up in appeal to this Court. In State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar (1995(4) SCC 683, a three Judge Bench had expressly repelled such a contention and had held that non filing of an appeal is 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: "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 similar 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 the interest of the State or public interest." 10. Therefore, the contention raised has absolutely no substance. 11.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Therefore, the authority cited by the learned counsel does not support his contention in any manner.In our opinion, the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions has 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 which is coming up in appeal to this Court. In State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar (1995(4) SCC 683, a three Judge Bench had expressly repelled such a contention and had held that non filing of an appeal is one matter would not act as a bar against the State in filing appeal in another matter where similar point may be involved.the contention raised has absolutely no substance.