9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case are as under: Petitioner is having contract with East Cultural Association (Club) to run catering services. It has entered into an agreement with the club in terms of annexure-D. It has made over deposits to the club in terms of the agreement. It is registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ("Act" for short). It serves food items and it is not supposed to serve liquor in the club premises. Club itself serves liquor to its member. No licence is obtained by the petitioner for dealing with liquor. 3.. Intelligence wing of the department visited the premises on December 20, 2001 and they sought for production of books of accounts from the petitioner. They issued notice under section 29(1)(e) of the Act proposing to levy tax a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estaurateur (other than a hotelier or a restaurateur engaged in re-selling of Goods purchased by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or a dealer engaged in vending of liquor including beer), or a hotelier or a restaurateur operating in the same premises or a premises attached to a place where liquor including beer is served, a dealer running a sweet meat stall or ice cream parlour, so elects, accept in lieu of the amount of the tax payable by him, under this Act, during any year, by way of composition, an amount at the rate of four per cent of his total turnover." 7.. In the case on hand, it is no doubt true that the petitioner is not strictly serving liquor to its members. It serves food items to the members of the club. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the purpose of club service in the case on hand. Moreover, it can be seen that when liquor is served, food articles are normally served to the consumers of liquor. Service of food items is a part of liquor service. In the given circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner is a total stranger as argued by the petitioner. 8.. In fact, the Supreme Court was considering the applicability of the ESI Act, 1948 to a theatre in Hyderabad in Royal Talkies, Hyderabad v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad reported in AIR 1978 SC 1478; (1978) 2 Lab LJ 390. In the given case, in the theatre premises, canteen and cycle stand were run by private contractors with their own employees. The question in that case was as to whether theatr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ees and cycle stand attendants. May be, punctilious sense of grammar and minute precision of language may sometimes lend unwitting support to narrow interpretation. But language is handmaid, not mistress. Maxwell and Fowler move along different streets, some times. When, as in section 2(9), the definition has been cast deliberately in the widest terms and the draftsman has endeavoured to cover every possibility so as not to exclude even distant categories of men employed either in the primary work or cognate activities, it will defeat the object of the statute to truncate its semantic sweep and throw out of its ambit those who obviously are within the benign contemplation of the Act. Salvationary effort, when the welfare of the weaker secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y way of denial of certain facilities. In the light of the object of the Act, I am not able to understand as to how the words "hotelier or a restaurateur operating in the same premises or premises attached to a place where liquor including beer is served" have to be excluded as sought to be made out by the petitioner. Acceptance of the argument of the petitioner would result in defeating the very object of the statute. Moreover, it is fairly well-settled that while interpreting a section the court has to bear in mind the object of the Act. In fact, in the very case of Royal Talkies AIR 1978 SC 1478; (1978) 2 Lab LJ 390, apex Court has ruled that no interpretation would be placed which would result in the defeat of the object of the statute. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nderlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, enter into judicial verdict (AIR 1981 SC 873, Laxmi Khandsari v. State of U.P.; AIR 1968 SC 1323, Treveli v. State of Gujarat (sic) and Harakchand Rattanchand Banthia v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1453)." In the case on hand, restriction, if at all, is in "public interest" and that, therefore, the judgment instead of supporting the petitioner supports the State. 11.. In the result, I do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere in this writ petition. Petition is rejected. Respondents are directed to decide the case on merits in the light of this j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
