Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Article Section

Home Articles Service Tax Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal Experts This

INTERPRETATION TAX STATUTES- SOME RULES/ DOCTRINES

Submit New Article
INTERPRETATION TAX STATUTES- SOME RULES/ DOCTRINES
Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal By: Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal
July 14, 2011
All Articles by: Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal       View Profile
  • Contents

In this article, we discuss  certain principles or doctrines practices of interpretation of tax statutes which help in effective and equitable judicial pronouncements such as rule of reading down, doctrine of legitimate expectation and  doctrine of noscitur a sociis .

Rule of Reading Down

The rule of reading down statutory provisions means that a statutory provisions is generally read down in order to save such provisions from being declared illegal or un constitutional. The rule of reading down is in itself a rule of harmonious construction in a different name and generally used to straighten crudities or ironing out creases to make a statute workable. In the garb of reading down provisions not found in provision or statute and venture into judicial legislation. This rule should be used for limited purpose of making particular a  provision it is not open to read words or expressions  workable and to bring it in harmony wise other provisions of the statute [Also see B.R. Enterprises v State of UP (1999) 9 SCC 700; Calcutta Gujarati Education Society v Calcutta Muncipal Corporation (2003) 10 SCC 533]

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

Every person has a legal right to receive a fair decision from an administrative authority. In constitutional scheme of governance, every person, who acts on the basis of a policy decision of the Government, must be held to have legitimate expectation of being treated fairly if his action does not violate the law. Legitimate expectation vests sufficient interest in a person to claim enforcement of his right. The protection of legitimate expectation does not, however, require fulfilment of the expectation, where such fulfilment would be against overriding public interest. Hence, when a person’s legitimate expectation is not fulfilled, while taking a decision, the decision maker, when questioned in the court, must be able to justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest, [See Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, reported in (1993) 3 SCC 499].

The logical extension of the above principle is that it is implicit in Article 14 that a change in policy by the Government is made fairly and must not give the impression that the change, in the policy, was arbitrary. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in every State action. This, in turn, implies non-arbitrariness and obliges the State to act in a manner, which cannot be regarded as arbitrary. If the State has to avoid arbitrariness in its action, it must show that its decision is based by taking into account all relevant factors and by keeping excluded from consideration all such factors, which were irrelevant. Consideration of the relevant factors, in such case, would also be covered by the legitimate expectation of an investor. [See Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v Commercial Tax Officer, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 625].

A Government has no obligation to make promises; but if it chooses to make promise, it cannot withdraw the promise merely because it does not have desirable wherewithal to ensure that its enforcement machinery functions efficiently and properly. For the failure of its own machinery to check bogus production, a State cannot punish the bona fide investors. Acceptance of such a logic by a Court of law would shake not only the credibility of the Government as an executive, but also the Courts as the protectors of the rights and legitimate expectations of fair decision by every person in this country.   [ Refer Herbo Foundation Pvt Ltd v Union of India (2010) 261 ELT 98 (Gauhati )

Doctrine of Noscitur A Sociis

The principle ‘noscitur a sociis’ is a well accepted principle for interpretation of entries in a taxing statute. Any commodity mentioned in any entry gets its colour from the commodities or thing mentioned either before or after the particular item for the purpose of assigning it a correct meaning [CIT v. Sangrur Vansapati Mills Ltd (2006 -TMI - 33654 – (PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT)].

== = = = = = = =

 

By: Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal - July 14, 2011

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates