Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) v. Zest Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd
(1949) 79 CLR 16623 ALJ 520
(Judgment by: Latham CJ)
Between: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (NSW)
And: Zest Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd
Judges:
Latham CJRich J
Dixon J
McTiernan J
Williams J
Webb J
Judgment date: 12 December 1949
Judgment by:
Latham CJ
The question which arises upon this case stated is whether certain foods for fish are exempt from Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935-1947. The relevant exemption appears in Division I - "Agricultural Machinery, Implements, Equipment and Materials." Section 3 (2) of the Act, however, provides that the heading to any division in a schedule shall not be read as affecting the interpretation of that schedule or of any item in the schedule. Accordingly the fact that the word "agricultural" appears in the heading of the division is, it is expressly provided, not to affect the interpretation of any of the items in the schedule. The item under which the question arises appears in par. 6 of Div. I. The heading of this paragraph is - "Goods (and parts therefor) for use in the maintenance of livestock, viz. . . . (4) Foods for livestock." (at p170)
The foods in question are manufactured for sale to and use by persons who breed fish commercially for sale or Government Departments which breed fish for stocking rivers & c. In the Oxford English Dictionary "livestock" is defined as follows: -
"Domestic animals generally; animals of any kind kept or dealt in for use or profit."
Fish come within the latter words. Fish are animals. They are not vegetables or minerals or creatures of indeterminate classification. Fish are bred for commercial disposition in the same manner as cattle, horses, sheep, pigs, domestic poultry and various other birds, such as pigeons, budgerigars & c. Fish farms are not as common in Australia as poultry farms, but there is no difference between them in their commercial characteristics - they all produce animals for sale. The fact that such breeding of fish is not conducted on the same large scale as in the case of other animals cannot alter the meaning or the application of the word "livestock." (at p170)
The exemption, however, appears in a list which refers to many other goods which are used in connection with other animals and not in connection with fish; e.g. dips and washes for cattle or sheep, rugs for horses, cattle, sheep and pigs, and other articles with similarly limited use. It is said that therefore Parliament was not thinking of fish as livestock when the provision was made for the exemption in question. I would agree that it is highly probable that no-one in Parliament thought of fish as being livestock when the Act was passed. But that fact, if it be a fact, is completely irrelevant in construing the statute. The question is not what the Court thinks Parliament thought it was doing when it passed a bill. The mind of Parliament is to be ascertained by construing the words which Parliament has placed in the statute. The question is simply what the words contained in the Act mean. The Court should interpret the words of a statute as it finds them, paying attention to any context which shows that they were used in a particular sense or subject to a particular limitation. Here there is no context modifying the words in question. There are merely other separate provisions each dealing with a distinct subject matter. The words "foods for livestock" stand independently in the list in the schedule. The fact that in the same parts of the schedule there are other words relating only to four-footed livestock does not in my opinion affect the meaning of these separate words. I am therefore of opinion that the foods for fish which are bred and kept for commercial disposition are exempt. The question in the case is - "Are the said goods 'foods for livestock' and therefore exempt goods for purposes of the sales tax?" In my opinion this question should be answered in the affirmative and in accordance with the agreement of the parties judgment should be entered for the defendant with the costs of the action, including the costs of the case. (at p171)