COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS LEVER BROTHERS PAKISTAN LIMITED
1991 P T D 973
[Karachi High Court]
Before Mamoon Kazi and Salahuddin Mirza, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX
Versus
LEVER BROTHERS PAKISTAN LIMITED
S.T.C. No. 36 of 1982, decided on 20/03/1991.
Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)---
----S.10---Sales Tax Notification No.7 of 1951, item No.6---Exemption--Cattle Feed" or "Fodder" being identical both were exempted from levy of Sales Tax.
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 or 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. 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 words and phrases occurring in the body of the statute.
(b) Interpretation of Statutes-----
----Expressions "including;" and "shall be deemed to be included" generally used in interpretation clause of a statute have the effect of enlarging the meaning of words and phrases occurring in the body of statute.
Commissioner of Income-tax/Sales Tax (Central Zone), Karachi v. Lever Bros. (Pak.) Ltd. 1986 PTD 29 fog.
Shaikh Haider for Petitioner N.A. Farooqui for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 20th March, 1991.
JUDGMENT
MAMOON KAZI, J.---This reference has been filed under section 17(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951. The assessee during the assessment year under reference made sales of Cattle Feed for which exemption was claimed by him under Item No. 6 of Sales Tax Notification No. 7 of 1951 on the plea that "Cattle Feed" and "Fodder" are the same. This view was not accepted by the Sales Tax Officer as according to him the Cattle Feed is prepared by mixing molasses and salt, and therefore, it is not the same as Fodder. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent filed an appeal before. the Assistant Commissioner which was dismissed vide his order dated 29-11-1979. Thereafter, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the respondent's contention and allowed the exemption in respect of Cattle Feed holding that it is covered by Item No. 6 of the said Sales Tax Notification. The applicant, thereafter filed a reference application before the learned Appellate Tribunal for referring the question of law to this Court which was rejected vide its order dated 11-11-1981 (received by the applicant on 16-12-1981). The following question of law, according to the applicant arises for consideration:--
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in treating Cattle Feed and Fodder as identical?"
Mr. Shaikh Haider, learned counsel for the respondent has invited our attention to an earlier judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax/Sales Tax (Central Zone), Karachi v Lever Bros. (Pak) Ltd. 1986 PTD 29. In this case a similar question had arisen before this Court and it was held as follows:--
"From the above meanings it will be seen that 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 or 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. 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 words and phrases occurring in the body of the statute".
2. Since the question has already been answered and we find ourselves in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Division Bench in the said case and for the same reasons as stated thereby we answer the question accordingly in the affirmative.
M.B.A./C-223/K. Reference answered in the affirmative.