Page 78 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

36 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
the goods sold, the parties to whom they are sold, and to which authority the form is
to be furnished. But the phrase “in the prescribed manner” in Section 8(4) does not
take in the time-element. In other words, the section does not [authorise] the rule-
making authority to prescribe a time-limit within which the declaration is to be
filed by the registered dealer. The view that we have taken is supported by the lan-
guage of Section 13(4)(g) of the Act which states that the State Government may
make rules for “the time within which, the manner in which and the authorities to
whom any change in the ownership of any business or in the name, place or nature
of any business carried on by any dealer shall be furnished.” This makes it clear
that the Legislature was conscious of the fact that the expression “in the manner”
would denote only the [order] in which an act was to be done, and if any time-limit
was to be prescribed for the doing of the act, specific words such as “the time within
which” were also necessary to be put in the statute. In Stroud’s Judicial Diction-
ary it is said that the words “manner and form” refer only “to the mode in
which the thing is to be done, and do not introduce anything from the Act
referred to as to the thing which is to be done or the time for doing it. “In
Acraman v. Herniman, 117E.R. 1164 the plaintiffs had become the assignees
in bankruptcy proceedings against Garret who had executed on March 4,
1850 a warrant of attorney to the defendant Herniman on the strength of
which the latter had obtained judgment against him and sold his goods. A
copy of the warrant of attorney was filed with the officer acting as clerk of
the documents and judgments in the court of Queen’s Bench on March 11,
1850, but no affidavit of the time of execution of such warrant of attorney
was filed at any time. Stat. 12 and 13 Viet. C. 106, s. 136 provided that any
warrant of attorney given by a trader to confess judgment in a personal ac-
tion, not filed within twenty-one days after execution in the manner and
form provided by State. 3. G.-4, C. 39 should be deemed fraudulent, null
and void Section 1 of Stat. 3 G. 4, C. 39 required that such warrant of attor-
ney should be filed together with an affidavit of the time of execution
thereof, within twenty-one days of the execution of the warrant of attorney.
Section 2 provided that if after twenty-one days, the party giving such war-
rant of attorney shall be declared a bankrupt, then unless the warrant or a
copy thereof shall have been filed as aforesaid within 21 days from the exe-
cution or unless judgment shall have been signed or execution issued
thereon within the same period, such warrant of attorney and the judgment
and execution thereon, shall be deemed fraudulent and void against the as-
signees, As already stated, judgment had been signed on March 11, 1850,
i.e., within twenty-one days of the execution of the warrant of attorney, and
it was contended on behalf of the defendant that the judgment was valid
notwithstanding the failure to file the affidavit as required by section 1 of
Stat. 3 G. 4 C. 39. The arguments was rejected and it was held by the
Queen’s Bench that the warrant of attorney and the judgment thereon were
void as against the assignees in bankruptcy. In the course of his judgment,
Lord Campbell C.J. observed as follows :
“The enactment of stat. 12 & 13 Viet. C. 106, s. 136, is very plain; and I
cannot agree to put a forced construction upon it. The Legislature has said
there that any warrant of attorney given by a trader to confess judgment in
a personal action, not filed within twenty-one days after execution in man-
ner and form provided by stat. 3. G 4. C. 39, shall be deemed fraudulent,
null and void, the manner directed by that Act is filing the warrant or copy,
with an affidavit of the time of execution. Here are a judgment and execu-
tion on a warrant of attorney given by a trader, and the warrant filed, but
without an affidavit. The plain meaning of the late Act is that such a war-

GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  78