TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1954 (10) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....milar establishments, so in order to obtain a clarification of the law, this has been selected as a test case. 2. The appellant is the owner of a small establishment called the Honesty Engineering Works situate in Ahmedabad in the State of Bombay. He employs three workers. He does business in a very small way by going to certain local mills, collecting orders from them for spare parts, manufacturing the parts so ordered in his workshop, delivering them to the mills when ready and collecting the money therefore. No buying or selling is done on the premises. The question is whether a concern of this nature is a "shop" within the meaning of section 2(27) of the Act. The learned trying Magistrate held that it was not and so acquitted. The Hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."such trade or business" relates back to the opening words of the definition which read - "any premises where goods are sold." 6. He argues that the emphasis is on the words "goods are sold" and not on the word "premises" because a trade or business relates to the buying and selling of goods and is not confined to the premises where that occurs. He admits that the main portion of the definition which relates to "premises" where goods are sold" cannot exclude the "premises" element and that unless there are premises on which goods are sold, the main portion of the definition cannot apply, e.g., in the case of a street hawker or of a man who totes his goods from house to house and sells them at the door. But he contends that the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to the carved out area and not to the circle as a whole. The word "such" confines what follows to what has gone before and what has gone before is not the trade of selling in general but only that part of the trade of selling which is carried on defined premises. Counsel argues that there is no justification for ignoring the limitation which the Legislature has placed on the main portion of the definition and holding that "such" relates to a much wider classification of "selling" which the main portion of the definition not only does not envisage but has deliberately excluded. We think that as a matter of plain construction this is logical and right. 8. The learned Attorney-General went on to contend that even if this is a possible vie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allied topic. We do not intend to break the general rule that points to the undesirability of interpreting the provisions of one Act by those of another passed by a different Legislature, but as we have already decided the question of construction and interpretation and are now considering only the general policy of the State Legislature, we deem it right to view the matter in its larger aspect for the special reasons we shall now enumerate. 10. Now the Central Act, the Factories Act of 1948, was passed on the 23rd of September, 1948. The Bombay Act, though entitled Act LXXIX of 1948, was not passed till the following year, namely, on 11th January, 1949. The Bombay Legislature had the Central Act in mind when it passed its own legislati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re influenced by matters which we consider inconclusive. The appellant applied for registration under the Bombay Act and in the statement made under section 7 he called his establishment a "workshop" and described the nature of his business as a "factory". The learned Judges considered that this imported an admission that his establishment was a "shop" because of the use of the word "shop" in "workshop". This might have raised an inference of fact against the appellant had nothing else been known but when the facts are fully set out as above and admitted, the appellant's opinion about the legal effect of those facts is of no consequence in construing the section. No estoppel arises. The appellant explained that the matter seemed doubtfu....