Govinda Menon, J.-The judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver, which I have, with advantage and pleasure read before-hand, deals with adequate particularity of detail the questions in issue and therefore I propose to add only a few words as regards the legal question arising in the case.

Though fiscal statutes resembling the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1939, had been in vogue in at least three of the Nations constituting the British Commonwealth before the enactment of the Act in question by the Madras Legislature, and General Sales Tax Acts were in force in about 25 States of the U.S.A. as well as in various European countries, our ttention has not been drawn to any provision of an enactment similar to section 8 of the Statute which we have to interpret. Such being the case, the decision on the point should rest solely on the interpretation of the words of the section unhampered and uninfluenced by any notions of things prevalent in other countries.

A strict grammatical and etymological interpretation of the word “dealer” as defined in section 2(b) of Act IX of 1939 would include persons like the plaintiffs in the present action even if they had merely act