Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) v. Zest Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd
(1949) 79 CLR 16623 ALJ 520
(Judgment by: McTiernan J)
Between: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (NSW)
And: Zest Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd
Judges:
Latham CJ
Rich J
Dixon J
McTiernan JWilliams J
Webb J
Judgment date: 12 December 1949
Judgment by:
McTiernan J
In my opinion the question should be answered in favour of the plaintiff. (at p173)
Fish kept and bred in hatcheries for the purposes of sale may fit some definitions of livestock in dictionaries; because a fish is an animal and some of the definitions possibly include animals of any kind kept by man for any purpose. The question in the present case, however, is whether the word "livestock" in item 6 (4) of the First Schedule of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935-1947 is used in such a general sense. The sub-item is "Foods for livestock." (at p174)
Section 3 (2) precludes the consideration of the title of Div. 1 of the First Schedule as an aid to the meaning of livestock: but it does not preclude consideration of the words describing each item and sub-item. (at p174)
Item 5 is "Livestock imported solely for breeding purposes." There is nothing in the words of this item which restrains the generality of the term "livestock." Item 6 is "Goods (and parts therefor) for use in the maintenance of livestock." The goods are specified by thirteen sub-items. Taking item 6 (4) by itself, it may refer to food for any animals that can be classed as livestock. A number of sub-items refer to various goods used in the maintenance of "livestock." These goods could have no possible use in the maintenance of fish kept in ponds or hatcheries: it is clear that the animals meant by the word "livestock" in those sub-items do not include fish. In the remainder of the sub-items of 6 the word "livestock" is not mentioned. The goods to which those subitems refer could not possibly be used in the maintenance of fish. Taking the whole of the context it is not, in my opinion, a fair interpretation of the word "livestock" in item 6 (4) to say it is wide enough to include fish. (at p174)
If the word "livestock" in this sub-item includes fish it would by a parity of reasoning include poultry and bees which might also be classified for some purposes as animals. If it were intended to include "animals" of either of those classes, items 11 (1) and (2) or item 12, which refer specially to poultry and bees, would not be necessary. Item 11 (1) which is "Poultry imported solely for breeding purposes" and item 12 (1) which is "Bees imported solely for breeding purposes" would have been already covered by item 5 "Livestock imported solely for breeding purposes": and item 6 (4) "Foods for Livestock" would have covered item 11 (2) "Foods for poultry." The scheme of the schedule appears to be to extend the list of exempted items as it proceeds. (at p174)
It is not necessary to attempt to give an exhaustive definition of the meaning of livestock in item 6 (4). It is clear, if the context is taken as a guide to the meaning of the word, and the First Schedule is read as a whole, that the word "Livestock" in item 6 (4) was intended to refer only to animals, one characteristic at least of which is that they are fed and maintained on the ground. This, of course, is not a characteristic of fish. (at p175)