TMI Blog1965 (10) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the sales were covered by entry 14 of Schedule A and were, therefore, exempt from tax, but this contention was negatived by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. The applicants, therefore, preferred an appeal to the Tribunal but the Tribunal also took the same view and held that entry 14 of Schedule A exempted sale of cooked food and non-alcoholic drinks only when they were served in the hotel premises or immediately outside or within a reasonable distance of the hotel premises and service inside other private premises could not be regarded as service "outside" the hotel premises within the meaning of entry 14 of Schedule A. The Tribunal accordingly confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. This view of the Tribunal is now challenged before us in the present reference. The determination of the question submitted for our opinion turns on the true interpretation of entry 14 of Schedule A. The question becomes relevant because under section 5 no tax is payable on the sales of any goods specified in Schedule A and if the refreshments sold by the applicants to A. V. Parekh Institute fall within entry 14 of Schedule A the sales would be exempt from tax. Entry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. The answer which the applicants gave to this argument was that having regard to the object and purpose of the entry and its legislative history, there was no reason to give a narrow and constricted meaning to the expression "at or outside" which according to it plain natural meaning meant not only inside or immediately outside the establishment but also anywhere outside the establishment, whether such place be in the immediate vicinity of the establishment, or far way from the establishment and service of cooked food and non-alcoholic drinks at the premises of A. V. Parekh Institute was, therefore, service for consumption outside the applicant's hotel within the meaning of the entry. These rival contentions raised a narrow but interesting question of construction which we shall now proceed to examine. It is a sound rule of construction of a statute originally laid down in Heydon's case3 Co. Rep. 7a; 76 E.R. 637. , and reaffirmed by Earl of Halsbury in Eastman Photographic Material Co. v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks[1898] A.C. 571. that: "........ to construe the statute in question, it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ip was caused to owners of eating establishments under this entry. The sales of food and non-alcoholic drinks made by them were exempt from tax where food and non-alcoholic drinks were consumed in the eating establishment or immediately outside the eating establishment but where food and non-alcoholic drinks were served by them at other places or though served at the eating establishment were taken away by the customers for consumption elsewhere, the sales were not exempt from tax. Now by the very nature of the business they could not possibly maintain separate accounts in respect of these two categories of sales, and the Sales Tax Authorities, therefore, used to estimate the taxable sales by reference to such uncertain and undeterminative factors as the number of tables in the area of the eating establishment, the number of waiters employed, the area of the owners of eating establishment, etc. This caused great hardships to the owners of eating establishments and often resulted in unfair and unjust taxation and moreover there was really no valid or cogent reason to differentiate between sale of food and non-alcoholic drinks for consumption at the eating establishment and sale of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t about by the use of the single word "at" as already held by the Tribunal while interpreting the old entry 22 of Schedule A. Secondly, by accepting such interpretation we would be placing an artificially narrow and constricted meaning on the word "outside". That word is a word of ordinary English usage and according to its plain natural meaning it means any place in the wide open world outside the eating establishment. The premises of A.V. Parkeh Institute would certainly be outside the eating establishment of the applicants according to the ordinary connotation of that word. And thirdly, the object and purpose of the Legislature in adding the words "or outside" would be clearly set at naught if we regard the addition of those words as having been made by the Legislature merely ex super abundanti cautela. Moreover in reason and on principle also there is no basis for the supposed distinction between sale of looked food and non-alcoholic drinks when they are served for consumption in or immediately outside the eating establishment and sale of cooked food and non-alcoholic drinks when they are served for consumption at any other place outside the eating establishment. The object o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
