2005 (8) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURT

Interpretation of the expression "substitute" - Held that:- In a case of this nature where the effect of a beneficent statute was sought to be extended keeping in view the fact that the benefit was already availed of by the agriculturalists of tobacco in Guntur, it would be highly unfair if the benefit granted to them is taken away, although the same was meant to be extended to them also. For such purposes the statute need not be given retrospective effect by express words but the intent and object of the legislature in relation thereto can be culled out from the background facts.

The question has furthermore to be considered having regard to the language and object discernible from the statute read as a whole. The Respondents were not ineligible from obtaining the benefit. Once they are held to be eligible for obtaining the benefit, the amended notification being an exemption notification should receive the beneficent construction.

It is not a case where the Respondents were ineligible from claiming the benefit. The subsequent notification, thus, should receive a beneficent construction. registration at the inland container depot was to remain valid for a period of 12 months only and in that view of the matter too, it cannot be said that the Central Government intended to deprive the Respondents herein who were agriculturists from the benefit of the aforementioned notification dated 7-4-1997 only for a limited period, viz., between 7-4-1997 and 27-11-1997. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in arriving at the aforementioned conclusion. Appeal dismissed.