When it comes to interpretation of any statute, more particularly any tax statute, there are various considerations to be kept in mind while interpreting the provisions of law. Such considerations are relevant for implementation of the law as per the legislative intention.
For example, considerations such as legislative intention, purposive interpretation, strict and liberal interpretation, literal interpretation, interpretation of beneficial provisions, interpretation and application of various legal rules and doctrines and so on. Infact, the plain language of the provision is also to be kept in mind and also ensure that no words or phrases are imported.
Important considerations in tax law interpretation
Following considerations are of paramount relevance and importance for interpretation of tax laws.
- Presumption that the statute is valid and that burden to prove any invalidity is on the person who challenges it.
- Constitutional validity cannot be challenged merely on the ground of spirit of constitution.
- Legislative intention
- Statutes are presumed to be in conformity with international law.
- Generally, legislature does not waste its words.
- Words ought to be interpreted in ordinary sense unless such words are technical.
- Plain and natural meaning is not inter-changeable with popular meaning.
- The state legislatures has no extra-territorial or jurisdiction legislative powers.
- The principle that in statutes words are to be taken in their legal sense has… a special cogency when the words in question represent only legal conceptions. The popular use of such words does not represent the primary meaning of the words, but some half understanding of them.
- It has to be presumed that the legislature knows the rules of grammar.
- It is presumed that the legislature knows the law, judicial decisions and general principles of law.
- Statutes can be in pari materia. However, adoption of construction in a statute in pari materia does not amend original statute.
- In jurisdiction of Supreme Courts, there is no implied authority to deprive superior courts of their jurisdiction. There should be no conflict or clash of jurisdiction between two equally.
- Wordings of the statute should not lead to absurdity.
- The provisions of a statute must be construed fairly so as reasonably to effect the object which the legislature may be presumed to have had in view. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which will fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, the court should avoid the construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should rather accept the bolder construction based on the view that the legislature would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result.
- The words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning; but to arrive at the real meaning, it is necessary to get an exact conception of the aim, scope and object of the whole Act.
- Two meanings of any word are possible. If the words of an Act admit of two interpretations, then they are not clear; and if one interpretation leads to an absurdity, and the other does not, the court will conclude that the legislature did not intend to lead to an absurdity and will adopt the other interpretation.
- The construction of statute should be reasonable. The canons of construction of statute do not permit the court to take the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the consequences of a particular interpretation, as it is in substance a question of expediency for the legislature.
- Preference should be given to a reasonable meaning, if the provision is not clear and plain.
- Golden rule that intention of legislature should not be defeated, must always be kept in mind.
- When the language of section of an Act is not ambiguous, in interpreting the plain words of such a positive enactment, any suggestion of hardship is out of place.
- The argumentum ab inconvenient is only admissible in construction where the meaning of the statute is obscure.
- Were they (words) are ambiguous, other sections or sub-section might have to be invoked to clear up the meaning; but being unambiguous, such a reference might distort that meaning and so produce error.
- Latest expressions should prevail in a situation of repugnancy between two statutes.
- In case of statutes on same subject the rule of construction is to so interpret the enactments that they shall be, if possible, consistent. But if they cannot be fairly read in such a way as to give full meaning to each, consistently with the other, then one must give way, and the one to give way will be the general provision.
- In case of clash between a section and a rule, section will prevail. If reconciliation between a section and a rule made under the Act is not possible ten the rule, being subordinate provision must give way.
- Tax can be levied only by express words and levy of tax cannot be implied.
- Substance over form will prevail. Substance and not the form should be taken into consideration.
- Taking legislations are subject to the fundamental rights as stipulated in the constitution of India and other constitutional provisions.
