9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (2) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls, boarding houses and restaurants; (ii) dealers in such articles of food and drink sold elsewhere, has no reasonable or just relation to the object of the Act, which is to tax the turnover of the sales of a dealer. The apparent discrimination, which results in one class of such dealers being singled out for levy of tax at a higher rate, has not been explained by any classification with a reasonable basis, having a just and reasonable relation to the object of the Act. We are of opinion that the proviso to section 3(1)(b) of the Act offends Article 14 of the Constitution and is, therefore, void and unenforceable against the first petitioner." In another decision of this Court in State of Madras v. Kanchilal [1956] 7 S.T.C. 606. Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., sitting singly had to consider whether the turnover of sales of articles of food and drink sold at a sweetmeat stall fell for chargeability within the terms of the proviso above extracted. The learned judge held therein that, "The three terms, hotel, boarding house and restaurant, imply that what is supplied as and by way of meals, refreshments and drinks are intended to be consumed at the place where facilities are provided for s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raw products, which were also articles of food and drink, amounted to discrimination. This contention was not accepted. The appeal failed. When the matter came to the Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal holding that it had no authority to question the validity of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The matter has now come to this Court by way of a revision under section 12-B(1) of the Act. In the revision before us, it has been contended that the amendment of the provision by Act XV of 1956 has not had the effect of removing the discriminatory nature of the imposition of tax and that notwithstanding the enlargement of the expression "hotel, boarding house or restaurant" by the addition of "a stall or any other place", the constitutional objection that was raised to the levy at the enhanced rate still continues to prevail. In addition, it is urged that though the object of the amended proviso was apparently to cover sales of all such articles at whatever place they may be sold, the department is enforcing the Act to levy the enhanced tax only in respect of sales in hotels, boarding houses, restaurants or stalls. It was further claimed that such articles were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rase. The argument on behalf of the State is that words of limitation should not be read into a statute, if that can be avoided. But this general principle is still subject to other special rules of construction of which the ejusdem generis rule is an accepted one. In Craies on "Statute Law" (5th Edn.) at page 168, the author observes: "This rule of law, generally known as the ejusdem generis rule, was thus enunciated by Lord Campbell in R v. Edmundson[1859] 28 L.J.M.C. 213, 215. 'I accede', said he 'to the principle laid down in all the cases which have been cited, that, where there are general words following particular and specific words, the general words must be confined to things of the same kind as those specified'. It is really a question of the assumed intention of the statute." At page 170: "The ejusdem generis rule is one to be applied with caution and not pushed too far, as in the case of many decisions, which treat it as automatically applicable, and not as being, what it is, a mere presumption, in the absence of other indications of intention of the Legislature. The modern tendency of the law, it was said, is 'to attenuate the application of the rule of ejusdem ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is impossible, therefore, to accept the contention of the learned Advocate-General that there is no category, a distinct category, indicated by those expressions. It seems to us, therefore, that these specific words "hotel, boarding house or restaurant or stall" are not so widely different in character, in so far as the immediate consumability of the articles that are sold in those places is concerned, that one can say that these places differ so greatly from each other that a common feature does not exist. This seems to us to be a proper case where the ejusdem generis principle is necessarily and forcibly attracted. The further argument on behalf of the State is that if the ejusdem generis rule is only to serve as a guide or clue to the intention of the Legislature, consistent with the principle that the words of a statute should not be restrictively construed, we should hold that the intention of the Legislature was to bring within the net of taxation all places where articles of food and drink are sold. It seems to us however that it is one thing to refer to the intention of the Legislature and quite a different one to conclude whether that apparent intention has been really ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted by the Government in the exercise of their powers under section 6(1) of the Act, which is, according to him, a clear indication that but for this exemption such dealers would be subject to the higher rate of levy. Such notifications exempting co-operative milk supply societies, manufacturers of syrups, squashes and essences or aerated waters, dealers in articles of food such as biscuits, jam, canned fruits etc., in sealed containers and oilman stores have been brought to our notice. It is not necessary for us to consider whether any of such dealers as those contemplated in these exemption notifications would at all be liable to the higher rate of tax but for these exemptions. These notifications purporting to be in the exercise of powers of the Government granting exemption, whether such exemption was needed or not, do not carry the matter further in the matter of construction of the terms of the statute. If at all, this argument may be of value only for the purpose of establishing that no inequality in the enforcement of the Act is caused by the administration and the provision should not be struck down on that ground. The learned Advocate-General further argued that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
