MEANING AND SCOPE OF NOTIFICATION

[Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal]

According to Section 2(80), of CGST Act, 2017, a 'Notification' means a notification published in the Official Gazette and the expressions 'notify' and 'notified' shall be construed accordingly. Any Notification has to be notified by way of publication and once it is done, it is said to be notified.

The following judicial pronouncements would make a better understanding and interpretation of the term, 'notification' :

• In Bachchu Lal v. State, 1951 (5) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , it was held that the words "notification, orders, rules and bye-laws" have no reference to judicial orders the passing and cancellation whereof is subject to and regulated by the procedural law of the land. Obviously the word 'orders' refer to non-judicial orders.

• In Anil Kumar Samanta Versus State of West Bengal 1953 (2) TMI 37 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT , it was held that the words 'a person' must be taken to include a group of persons who are in joint possession. If two persons are in joint possession over twice the maximum quantity prescribed, they become liable for contravention of the order and they cannot set up the fiction of being in separate possession of half the quantity each.

• In Shiv Prashad v. Punjab State, 1956 (9) TMI 57 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, it was held that the natural and obvious meaning of the expression 'person' is a living human being, a man, woman or child, an individual of the human race. As used in law the word includes natural persons and artificial persons like corporations and point stock companies, but it does not include a State or Government.

• In Nand Prasad v. Arjun Prasad, 1958 (5) TMI 34 - PATNA HIGH COURT , it was held that the word 'person' as understood in its ordinary sense generally implies a natural person and not a person artificial unless there is a provisions made for it either expressly or by necessary implication.

• In RE: V. S. Hariharan, 1959 (9) TMI 47 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT , it was held that the expression 'person' as defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act (10 of 1897) includes a company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not, but the expression 'person' cannot be detached from the context and viewed apart from the nature of the writs that are enumerated in the article. The word 'person' has not been defined in the Companies Act. It may be that the word comprises a number of individuals, such as a Hindu joint family.

The question whether a syndicate of ten persons was really composed of more than twenty persons is a question of fact to be decided on the evidence and not on a mere allegation. [AIR (1930) Bombay 431.]

• In Jagenshwar Sen Gupta v. Bimal Kanti paul 1960 (12) TMI 79 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT , it was held that 'Person' in the technical or legal sense can be a natural person like a human being or an artificial person like the holder of an office or a corporation.

• In Prannath Samantarai Versus Bhagirathi Sahoo, 1964 (12) TMI 66 - ORISSA HIGH COURT , it was held that the word 'Notification' means one made in the Gazette.

• In The Collective Farming Society Versus State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. 1973 (10) TMI 52 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT it was held that 'Person' includes a corporate body.

• In Rahmat v. Mandir Shri Laxminiaram, 1975 (8) TMI 140 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT , it was held that the word, person means not duly a natural person, but also a juristic or artificial person.

• In Kashmiri Lal v. State of Punjab, 1983 (8) TMI 309 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, it was held that Notification is a formal declaration, proclamation and publication of an order either generally and in the manner prescribed.

• In Jennifer Gregg and Mervyn Gregg Versus Commissioners of Customs and Excise 1999 (9) TMI 943 - EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE, where assessee, being a firm, had a nursing home and applied for registration under Service tax law to claim input credit, which was denied on ground that its activities were exempt, but assessee argued that it was not a body/establishment, hence, exemption allowable to body/establishment could not be allowed to it, it was held that terms 'body', 'establishment' and 'organisation' were in principle sufficiently broad to include natural persons as well. Exemptions provided to 'body', 'establishment' and 'organisation' were applicable not only to legal persons, but also to natural persons. Hence, it was held that assessee was eligible for exemption and was not liable to registration.

• In Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited v. C.C.E. TIRUCHIRAPALLI 2017 (2) TMI 713 - CESTAT CHENNAI the court while interpreting a curative notification held that law is well-settled that a curative notification which seeks to mitigate the hardships is always read in a manner to advance public welfare and construed liberally as well as retrospectively.