PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RESPONDENT: M/S. ASSOCIATED HOTELS OF INDIA LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT04/01/1972 BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. MITTER, G.K. SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) DUA, I.D. KHANNA, HANS RAJ CITATION: 1972 AIR 1131 1972 SCR (2) 937 1971 SCC (1) 472 CITATOR INFO : D 1974 SC2309 (110) RF 1977 SC1642 (6) RF 1978 SC 621 (28) R 1978 SC1591 (3,6,7) R 1980 SC 674 (4) E 1984 SC 744 (18) F 1989 SC 285 (10) ACT: Sales tax-Sale and contract of Work and service-Distinction and tests. HEADNOTE: The respondent-company was running the business of a hotelier and was registered as a dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. It applied for a declaration that it was not liable to sales-tax in respect of meals served to the guests staying in the hotel on the grounds that : (1) the hotel receives guests primarily for the purpose of lodging; (2) when so received the management provides him with a number of amenities including meals at fixed hours, incidental to such lodging and with a view to render hi-, stay comfortable; (3) the transaction between the respondent and the guests is one for the latter to stay and not one of sale of food stuffs supplied; (4) the bill given by the respondent and paid by the guest is one and indivisible, being a fixed amount per day during his stay in the hotel and does not consist of separate items in respect of the several amenities furnished to him, and (5) the transaction does not envisage any sale of food since the guest cannot demand a rebate or deduction if he were to miss a meal or meals nor is he entitled to carry away or deal with, in any manner, the food served on his table if a part of it is not consumed. The department rejected the company's application but the High Court allowed its writ petition. Dismissing the appeal to this Court, HELD : The transaction is one essentially of service in the performance of which and as part of the amenities incidental to that service, the hotelier serves meals at stated hours. The Revenue, therefore, was not entitled to split up the transaction into two parts one of service and the other of sale of food stuffs and to split up the bill charged as consisting of charges for lodging and charges for food stuffs served with a view to bring the latter under the Act. [947 F-G] The distinction between a contract of sale and a contract of work and service is fine especially when the contract is a composite one involving both. In considering whether a transaction is a sale falling within the purview of sales- tax it is necessary to determine the nature of the contract involved on the facts of each case. A contract of sale is one whose main object is the transfer of property and delivery of possession of a chattel to the buyer; but the mere passing of property in an article or commodity during the course of the performance of a transaction does not render it a transaction of sale when there is no intention to sell and purchase. When the principal object of work undertaken by the payee of the price is not the transfer of a chattel qua chattel the contract is one of work and labour. The test is whether or not the work or labour bestowed ends in anything that can properly become the subject of sale; neither the ownership of the materials nor the value of the skill 938 and labour as compared with the value of materials is conclusive, although such matters may be taken into consideration. In every case the court would have to find out what is the primary object of the transaction and the intention of the parties while entering into it. [942 D-G: 944 F-G. H] The transaction in the present case is one and indivisible, namely, one of receiving a customer in the hotel to stay. The bill is not capable of being split up into one for residence and another for sale of meals. Amenities including meals, are part and parcel of the service which, in reality, is the transaction between the parties. Even if it was to be disintegrated the supply of meals during such stay does not constitute a separate contract of sale, since no intention on the part of the parties to sell and purchase the food stuffs supplied during meal time can be spelt out. [945 G-H; 946 A-C] Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd., [1959] S.C.R. 379, Mohanlal Jogani Rice & Atta Mills. v. Assam [1953] 4 S.T.C. 129, Masanda & Co. v. Commissioner of Sales-tax, [1957] 8 S.T.C. 370, United Bleachers Ltd. v. Madras, (1960) 9 S.T.C. 278, Krishna & Co. Ltd. v. Andhra Pradesh, [1956] 7 S.T.C. 26, Patnaik & Co. v. Orissa, [1965] 16 S.T.C. 364, Andhra Pradesh v. Guntur Tobaccos Ltd. [1965] 2 S.C.R. 167 and English Law and United States Law, referred to. JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1207 of 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
May 10, 1967 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 159 of 1966.
V. C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellants.
M. C. Setalvad, M. C. Bhandare, Rameshwar Nath, T. R.
Bhasin and Lalit Bhasin, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shelat, J. The respondent-company carries on business as
hoteliers and conducts several hotels including the ‘Cecil
Hotel’ at Simla. Besides conducting hotels, it also carries
on restaurant business. As part of its business as
hoteliers, the company receives guests in its several hotels
to whom, besides furnishing lodging, it also serves several
other amenities, such as public and private room, bath with
hot and cold running water, linen, meals during stated hours
etc. The bill tendered to the guest is an all inclusive
one, that is to say, a fixed amount for the stay in the
hotel for each day and does not contain different items of
each of the aforesaid amenities. That is, however, not the
case in its restaurant business where a customer takes his
meal consisting either of items of food of his choice or a
fixed menu. The primary function of such a restaurant is to
serve meals desired by a customer, although along with the
food, the customer gets certain other amenities also, such
as service, linen etc. The bill which
939
the customer pays is for the various food items which he
consumes or at a definite rate for the fixed menu, as the
case may be, which presumably takes into account service and
other related amenities.
The respondent-company, as such hoteliers, has been
registered as a dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax
Act, XLVI of 1948 and has been filing quarterly returns and
paying sales tax under that Act.
On September 2, 1958 the company applied for a declaration
that it was not liable to pay sales tax in respect of meals
served in the said Cecil Hotel to the guests coming there
for stay. In support of its plea, the company raised the
following contentions : (1) that the, hotel receives guests
primarily for the purpose of lodging, (2) that when so
received, the management provides him with a number of
amenities incidental to such lodging and with a view to
render his stay in the hotel comfortable including meals at
fixed hours, (3) that the transaction between the company
and such a guest is one for the latter to stay and not one
of sale of food stuffs supplied as one of the incidental
amenities, (4) that the bill given by the company and paid
by the guest is one and indivisible, that is, a fixed amount
per day during his stay in the hotel and does not consist of
separate items in respect of the several amenities furnished
to him including meals served to him, and (5) that the
transaction so entered into does not envisage any sale of
food since the guest cannot demand a rebate or deduction if
he were to miss a meal or meals, nor is he entitled to carry
away or deal with in any manner the food served at his
table, if a part of it remains unconsumed. It is, on the
other hand, the management which has the right to deal with
such unconsumed remainder as it likes. Such a position,
therefore, is inconsistent with a sale under which the
property in the whole must pass to the purchaser, and who
can deal with the remainder in any manner he likes.
The Sales Tax Officer rejected the company’s application on
the ground that the transaction Which takes place between
the management and a resident guest takes in both lodging
and boarding and the hotel charges include consideration for
both. A revision under S. 21 of the Act by the company to
the Commissioner met the same fate. The company then filed
a writ petition for an order quashing the said decision as
also the notices issued by the Sales Tax authorities under
the Act. The grounds put forward in the writ petition were
almost the same which the company had previously urged in
its application for declaration.
There was no dispute regarding the facts stated in the writ
petition and particularly with regard to the fact that the
transac-
940
tion which a visiting resident enters into with the
management is one and indivisible, that the bill charged on
him is likewise one and indivisible, that the charges are
for each day of stay, and that that being so, the bill was
incapable of being split up into separate charges for each
of the amenities furnished and availed of by such a visiting
resident. The dispute was as to the nature of the
transaction and whether such transaction included sale of
food stuff supplied at various meals supplied to such a
customer.
The High Court, on a consideration of the arguments urged
before it and relying mainly upon the decision of this Court
in Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd.(,’), to the
effect that where a transaction is one and indivisible it
cannot be split up so as to attract the Sales Tax Act to a
part of it , allowed the writ petition. It held that a
transaction between a hotelier and his resident visitor did
not involve a sale of food when the former supplied meals to
the latter as one of the amenities during his residence, and
that if there was one inclusive bill, it was incapable of
being split up in the absence of any rates for the meals
agreed to between the parties as part of the transaction
between the two. The High Court also held that the
transaction was primarily one for lodging, that the board
supplied by the management amounted to an amenity considered
essential in these days in all properly conducted hotels,
and that when so supplied, it could not be said to
constitute a sale every time a meal was served to such a
resident visitor. This appeal, by special leave, is filed
against this view of the High Court.
The question in this appeal, it would appear, arises in the
present form for the first time. There are, therefore, no
previous decisions to guide its determination. It would,
however, be helpful to consider certain decisions both of
this Court as also of the High Courts, in which different
types of transactions which came up before them for
consideration in sales tax cases have been dealt with and
which might throw some light upon the problem before us.
In a case arising under the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947 though
there was no express sale in respect of gunny bags in which
rice, an exempted commodity, was supplied to Government,
they were held to form assessable turnover. There was,
however, in that case evidence that the assessees had
charged the Government for those bags (Mohanlal Jogani Rice
& Atta Mills V. Assam) (2).
In D. Masanda and Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax(3), the
question was whether photographic materials imported and
(1) [1959] S.CR. 379.
(3) [1957] 8 S.T.C. 370.
(2) [1953] 4 S.T.C. 129.
941
used in the process of manufacturing photographic work,
copies of which were supplied by the assessee to a customer,
was a transaction involving sale of those materials. The
High Court held that such a transaction did not cease to be
a sale merely because the materials were not sold directly
in their original form but in another form, forming the,
components of the finished product, namely, the copies of
the photograph, and that the transaction was not merely the
performance of skilled services but the supply of finished
goods. This was, however, a border line case. The
transaction might well be considered as one of service,
during performance of which, a transfer of certain
materials, in respect of which there was no contract for
sale, either express or implied, may be said to have taken
place. An illustration of such a kind is furnished by the
case of United Bleachers Ltd. v. Madras(1). In that case
the assessee bleached and dyed, calendered, pressed and
folded unbleached yarn and cloth manufactured by his custo-
mer textile mills. The bills issued by the assessee
contained, (a) bleaching charges, and (b) charges for
stitching, folding, stamping, baling etc., but did not
contain separately charges for the materials used for those’
purposes. The Revenue contended that there was transfer of
those materials and separately assessed the charges of those
materials holding that though the assessee did not
specifically deal in those materials, a portion of the
profit earned in the business of bleaching and calendering
could legitimately be attributed to the packing materials
and the transaction involved a sale of them for
consideration. On a reference, the High Court held that the
case was one of contract of service as distinguished from a
sale of a principal commodity, such as rice in Assam case
(supra) and salt in Varasuki and Co. v. Madras(1) On the
other hand, where a contract is to supply such commodity in
a packed condition, it could be inferred, though the
contract might not be express that the intention of the
parties was to give and accept delivery of the goods in a
packed condition and not to take the principal commodity
alone so that in the contract of sale of such a commodity
there was implicit the sale of packing material as well.
Even in a contract of service such as bleaching and
calendering where the goods after such processing are
delivered packed a sale of packing, materials is possible,
quite apart from the contract of service. The question in
such cases would be one of evidence, whether there is such a
contract beside the one of service. Where however there are
no such distinct contracts and the contract is one and
indivisible, the essential part of which is one of service,
packing would be part of or incidental to the service, and
unless an intention to charge for the materials used in the
packing can be spelt out, the Revenue would not be
(1) [1960] 9 S.T.C. 278.
(2) [1950] 2 S.T.C. 1.
942
entitled to split up the contract, estimate approximately
the charges for such materials and treat them as chargeable
on the mere ground that the transaction involved transfer of
packing materials, whose value must have been taken into
consideration while fixing charges for the service. Such an
implied contract of supply of packing materials was inferred
in a contract of service, namely, drying raw tobacco in
Krishna and Co. Ltd. v. Andhra Pradesh But the decision in
that case did not rest on there being a transfer of packing
materials in favour of the customer. There was evidence
that such a transfer was for consideration, inasmuch as the
amounts charged as remuneration for service also contained
charges for the packing materials though such charges were
not separately shown in the assessee’s accounts. In such a
state of evidence it would be possible for the Court to
infer a separate implied contract of sale of packing
materials and not as part of the service of drying raw
tobacco and delivering it in packed condition.
The difficulty which the Courts have often to meet with in
construing a contract of work and labour, on the one hand,
and a contract for sale, on the other, arises because the
distinction between the two is very often a fine one. This
is particularly so when the contract is a composite one
involving both a contract of work and labour and a contract
of sale. Nevertheless, the distinction between the two
rests on a clear principle. A contract of sale is one whose
main object is the transfer of property in, and the delivery
of the possession of, a chattel as a chattel to the buyer.
Where the principal object of work undertaken by the payee
of the price is not the transfer of a chattel qua chattel,
the contract is one of work and labour. The test is whether
or not the work and labour bestowed end in anything that can
properly become the subject of sale; neither the ownership
of materials, nor the value of the skill and labour as
compared with the value of the materials, is conclusive,
although such matters may be taken into consideration in
determining, in the circumstances of a particular case,
whether the contract is in substance one for work and labour
or one for the sale of a chattel(1).
In Patnaik and Co. v. Orissa (3), a difference of opinion
arose because of the fine distinction between the two types
of contract. The contract there was for constructing and
fixing bus bodies on the chassis supplied by the Orissa
Government. The contract, infer alia, provide that the
appellants were to construct the bus bodies in the most
substantial and workmanlike manner
(1) [1956] 7 S.T.C. 26. (2) Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd
Ed. Vol. 34, 6-7.
(3) [1965] 16 S.T.C. 364.
943
both as regards materials and otherwise in every respect in
strict compliance with the specifications and should deliver
them to the Governor on or before the dates specified
therein. The majority rejected the contention that that was
a contract of work and labour and held that the transaction
was one of sale. The question primarily was one of
construction of the contract, and the majority held that
both the agreement and the sale related to one kind of
property, namely, the bus bodies. The reason for so.
holding was stated to be that it was clear from the contract
that the property in the bus bodies did not pass on their
being constructed on the chassis, but only when the vehicles
including the bus bodies were delivered. Such a contract
was unlike a building contract or a contract under which a
movable is to be fixed on to another chattel or on the land,
where the intention plainly is not to sell that article but
to improve the land or the other, chattel and the
consideration is not for the transfer of the chattel but for
the work and labour done and the materials furnished. The
contract in question was to manufacture a bus body and fix
it on the chassis supplied and transfer the bus body so
constructed for consideration.
In Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd.(1) the main
question was as regards the vires of the Madras General
Sales. Tax Act, 1939, as amended by Madras Act XXV of 1947
which widened the definition of ‘sale’ by including, inter
alia, in it a transfer of property in the goods involved in
the execution of a works contract. Under this definition,
the Sales Tax authority brought into chargeable turnover the
materials used in the constructiOn works carried out by the
company. This Court held that a power to enact a law with
respect to tax on sale of goods under entry 48 of List 11 in
the 1935 Constitution Act must, to be intra vires, be one
relating in fact to a sale of goods and that a Provincial
Legislature could not, in the purported exercise of its
power, tax transactions which were not sales, by enacting
that they should be deemed to sales, that to construe a
transaction as sale there should be an agreement relating to
goods to be supplied by passing title in those goods, and
that it was of the essence of such a concept that both the,
agreement and the sale should relate to one and the same
subject matter. The conclusion arrived at was that in a
building contract, even if it were to be disintegrated,
there was no passing of title in the materials as movables
in favour of the other party of the contract. The contract
was one and indivisible, there was no sale of materials, and
consequently, there was no question of title to the
materials used by the builders passing to the other party to
the contract. Even where the thing produced under a
contract is movable property, the materials in-
(1) [1959] S.C.R. 379.
944
corporated into it might pass as a movable. But there would
be no taxable sale if there was no agreement to sell the
materials as such. In arriving at this conclusion, the
Court relied upon Appleby v. Myres(1) and the observations
of Blackburn, J., at 659-660 of the report to show that
thread stitched into a coat which is under repair becomes
part of the coat, but in a contract for repairing the coat
the parties surely did not enter into an agreement of sale
of that thread. In Andhra Pradesh v. Guntur Tobaccos
Ltd.(2), the transaction was for redrying tobacco
entrusted to the respondent-company by its customers. The
process involved the keeping of the moisture content of
tobacco leaf at a particular level and for that purpose the
leaf had to be packed in bales, in water-proof packing
material, as it emerged from the reconditioning plant. The
tobacco was then returned to the customer packed in costly
packing material. In the, company’s charges for redrying
there was no separate charge for the value of such packing
material. It was held that the redrying process could not
be completed without the use of the packing material, that
packing formed an integral part of that process, and that
although the redried tobacco was returned together with the
packing materials there was no sale of those materials as
there was no intention on the part of the parties to enter
into any transaction of sale as regards those materials.
The mere fact that in such a contract of work or service
property in goods which belonged to the party performing
service or executing the work stands transferred to the
other party is not enough. To constitute a taxable sale,
the Revenue has to establish that there was a sale, distinct
from the contract of work or service, of the property so
passing to the other party.
Thus, in consider whether a transaction falls within the
purview of sales tax it becomes necessary at the threshold
to determine the nature of the contract involved in such a
transaction for the purpose of ascertaining whether it
constitutes a contract of sale or a contract of work or
service. If it is of the latter kind it obviously would not
attract the tax. From the decisions earlier cited it
clearly emerges that such determination depends in each case
upon its facts and circumstances. Mere passing of property
in an article or commodity during the course of the
performance of the transaction in question does not render
it a transaction of sale. For, even in a contract purely of
work or service, it is possible that articles may have to be
used by the person executing the work and property in such
articles or materials may pass to the other party. That
would not necessarily ,convert the contract into one of sale
of these materials. in ,every case the Court would have to
find out what was the primary
(1) [1867] L.R.2C.P.651.
(2) [1965] 2 S.C.R. 167.
945
object of the transaction and the intention of the parties
while entering into it. It may in some cases be that even
while entering into a contract of work or even service,
parties might enter into separate agreements, one of work
and service and the other of sale and purchase of materials
to be used in the course of executing the work or performing
the service. But, then in such cases the transaction would
not be one and indivisible, but would fall into two separate
agreements, one of work or service and the other of sale.
What precisely then is the nature of the transaction and the
intention of the parties when- a hotelier receives a guest
in his hotel ? Is there in that transaction an intention to
sell him food contained in the meals served to him during
his stay in the hotel ? It stands to reason that during
such stay a well equipped hotel Would have to furnish a
number of amenities to render the customer’s stay
comfortable. In the supply of such amenities do the
hotelier and his customer enter into several contracts every
time an amenity is furnished ? When a traveler, by plane or
by steam-ship, purchases his passage-ticket, the transaction
is one for his passage from one place to another. If, in
the course of carrying out that transaction, the traveler is
supplied with drinks or meals or cigarettes, no one would
think that the transaction involves separate sales each time
any of those things is supplied. The transaction is
essentially one of carrying the passenger to his destination
and if in performance of the contract of carriage something
is supplied to him, such supply is only incidental to that
services, not changing either the pattern or the nature of
the contract. Similarly, when clothes are given for washing
to a laundry, there is a transaction which essentially
involves work or service, and if the laundery man stitches a
button to a garment which has fallen off, there is no sale
of the button or the thread. A number of such cases
involving incidental uses of materials can be cited. none of
which can be said to involve a sale as part of the main
transaction.
The transaction in question is essentially one and
indivisible. namely, one of receiving a customer in the
hotel to stay. Even if the transaction is to be
disintegrated, there is no question of the supply of meals
during such stay constituting a separate contract of sale.
since no intention on the part of the parties to sell and
purchase food stuff supplied during meal times can be
realistically spelt out. No doubt, the customer, during his
stay, consumes a number of food stuffs. It may be possible
to say that the property in those food stuffs passes from
the hotelier to the customer at least to the extent of the
food stuffs consumed by him. Even if that be so, mere
transfer of property, as aforesaid, is not conclusive and
does not render the event of such supply and con-
946
sumption a sale, since there is no intention to sell and
purchase. The transaction essentially is one of service by
the hotelier in the performance of which meals are served as
part of and incidental to that service, such amenities being
regarded as essential in all well conducted modem hotels.
The bill prepared by the hotelier is one and indivisible,
not being capable by approximation of being split up into
one for residence and the other for meals. No doubt, such a
bill would be prepared after consideration of the costs of
meals, but that would be so for all the other amenities
given to the customer. For example, when the customer uses
a fan in the room allotted to him, there is surely no sale
of electricity, nor a hire of the fan. Such amenities,
including that of meals, are part and parcel of service
which is in reality the transaction between the parties.
Even in the case of restaurants and other such places where
customers go to be served with food and drink for immediate
consumption at the premises, two conflicting views appear to
prevail in the American courts. According to one view, an
implied warranty of wholesomeness and fitness for human
consumption arises in the case of food served by a public
eating place. The transaction, in this view, constitutes a
sale within the rules giving rise to such a warranty. The
nature of the contract in the sale of food by a restaurant
to customers implies a reliance, it is said, on the skill
and judgment of the restaurant-keeper to furnish food fit
for human consumption. The other view is that such an
implied warranty does not arise in such transactions. This
view is based on the theory that the transaction does not
constitute a sale inasmuch as the proprietor of an eating
place does not sell but “utters” provisions, and that it is
the service that is predominant, the passing of title being
merely incidental(‘,’). The two conflicting views present a
choice between liability arising from a contract of implied
warranty and for negligence in tort, a choice indicative of
a conflict, in the words of Dean Pound, between social
interest in the safety of an individual and the individual
interest of the supplier of food. The principle accepted in
cases where warranty has been spelt out was that even though
the transaction is not a sale, the basis for an implied
warranty is the justifiable reliance on the judgment or
skill of the warrant or and that a sale is not the only
transaction in which such a warranty can be implied. The
relationship between the dispenser of food and one who
consumes it on the premises is one of contractual
relationship, a relationship of such a nature that an
implied warranty of wholesomeness reflects the reality of
the transaction involved and an express obligation
understood by the parties in the sense that the customer
does, in fact, rely upon such dispenser
(1) Corputs Juris Section, Vol 77,1215-1216.
947
of food for more than the use of due care. (see Cushing v-
Rodman(1). A representative case propounding the opposite
view is the case of F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Wilson(2), citing
Nisky v. Childs Co.(3), wherein the principle accepted was
that such cases involved no sales but only service and that
the dispenser of food, such as a restaurant or a drug store
keeper serving food for consumption at the premises did not
sell and warrant food but uttered and served it and was
liable in negligence, the rule in such cases being caveat
emptor.
In England, a hotel under the Hotel Proprietors Act, 1956 is
an establishment held out by the proprietor as offering
food, drink, and if so required, sleeping accommodation,
without special contract, to any traveller presenting
himself and who appears able and willing to pay a reasonable
sum for the services and facilities provided. This
definition, which is also the definition, of an inn, still
excludes, as formerly, boarding houses, lodging houses and
public houses which are merely alehouses and in none of
which there is the obligation to receive and entertain
guests. An innkeeper, that is to say, in the present days a
hotel proprietor, in his capacity as an in keeper is, on the
other hand, bound by the common law or the custom of the
realm to receive and lodge in his inn all comers who are
travellers and to entertain them at reasonable prices
without any special or previous contract unless he has some
reasonable ground of refusal (4) . The rights and
obligations of hotel proprietors are governed by statute
which has more or less incorporated the common law. The
contract between such a hotel proprietor and a traveller
presenting himself to him for lodging is one which is
essentially a contract of service and facilities provided at
reasonable price.
The transaction between a hotelier and a visitor to his
hotel is thus one essentially of service in the performance
of which and as part of the amenities incidental to that
service, the hotelier serves meals at stated hours. The
Revenue, therefore, was not entitled to split up the
transaction into two parts, one of service and the other of
sale of food stuffs and to split up also the bill charged by
the hotelier as consisting of charges for lodging and
charges for food stuffs served to him with a view to bring
the latter under the Act.
The conclusion arrived at by the High Court is one with
which we agree. Consequently, the appeal fails and is
dismissed with costs.
V.P.S. Appeal dismissed.
(1) 104 American L.R. 1023; 82 T.R. 2nd Srs. 864, 868.
(2) 74 F.R. 2nd Srs. 439.
(3) 103 N.J. Law 464.
(4) Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd Ed., Vol. 21, 445-446.
948
