TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (1) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of s. 80J of the I.T. Act, 1961, and, hence, we may begin our discussion of the issues arising in the writ petitions by examining the language of that section. But before we do so, we may usefully refer to the genesis of the provision enacted in s. 80J and the transformation it has undergone from time to time over the years. It is in fact necessary to trace the historical evolution of this provision in order to arrive at its true interpretation, for, as observed by Cardozo J. in Duparquet Huat v. Evans (297 US 216), in questions relating to construction, " history is a teacher that is not to be ignored ". The first time that a provision of this kind was introduced in the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1949, when s. 15C was added in that Act with effect from March 31, 1949. Sub-s. (1) of s. 15C exempted a part of the profits and gains of a new industrial undertaking from tax and this provision as originally enacted was in the following terms: " 15C. (1) Save as otherwise hereinafter provided, the tax shall not be payable by an assessee on so much of the profits or gains derived from any industrial undertaking to which this section applies ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....business profits tax under section 13 of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947 (XXI of 1947) :... " The process of computation of " capital employed in the undertaking according to this rule consisted of two steps ; one of addition of the value of assets of the industrial undertaking arrived at on the basis of different formulae according to the nature and the date of purchase of the assets and the other, of deduction of " any borrowed money and debt due by the person carrying on the business ". The significant point is that borrowed monies and debts due by the assessee were excluded in computation of " capital employed in the undertaking " by reason of sub-rule (3) of this rule. The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1949, was replaced by the Taxation Laws (Extension to Merged States and Amendment) Act, 1949, which came into force on December 31, 1949, and by s. 13 of this Act, s. 15C was continued and though some minor modifications were made, sub-s. (1) which granted the exemption remain unchanged. Sub ss. (2), (4) and (6) suffered some minor changes and, as re-enacted, these sub-sections read as follows : " (2) This section applies to any industrial undertaking which (i) is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ii) of sub-s. (2) of s. 15C and brought the business of hotels also within the purview of the exemption and laid down the conditions for grant of such exemption. We are not concerned with these changes so far as the present writ petitions are concerned and, hence, we need not refer to them in detail. Suffice it to state that the basic structure of s. 15C remained the same and so did the Indian Income-tax (Computation of Capital of Industrial Undertaking) Rules, 1949. The result was that throughout the period from March 31, 1949, when s. 15C was introduced in the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, up to the time that the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, remained in force, borrowed monies and debts due from the assessee were excluded in computing the capital employed in the undertaking for the purpose of determining the quantum of the exemption eligible under s. 15C. Then came the I.T. Act, 1961, which repealed the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. Section 15C of the I.T. Act, 1922, was recast as s. 84 in the I.T. Act, 1961. Sub-s. (1) of s. 84 granted the same exemption in respect of portion of the profits and gains derived from any industrial undertaking or hotel to which that section applied as did sub-s. (1) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umber of days comprised in the said period; (ii) 'computation period' means the period for which the profits and gains of the undertaking or hotel are computed under sections 28 to 43A; (iii) 'depreciation' means the allowance admissible under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 32 ; (iv) 'written down value' means the written down value computed under sub-section (6) of section 43 as if for the words 'previous year' the words 'computation period' were substituted. There were also several other changes made in s. 15C of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, while recasting it as s. 84, but these changes are not material for the purpose of the present writ petitions and they need not, therefore, detain us. It will thus be seen that even under s. 84 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the same position prevailed as before in regard to the exclusion of borrowed monies and debts in computing the capital employed in an industrial undertaking or a hotel for the purpose of determining the quantum of profits exempted under that section. This position continued uninterrupted until s. 84 was replaced by s. 80J with effect from 1st April, 1968, by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1967....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d forward beyond the seventh assessment year as reckoned from the end of the initial assessment year. Sub-s. (4) enacted certain conditions which must be fulfilled before an industrial undertaking could qualify for the benefit of the exemption and one of the conditions was that the industrial undertaking should not have been formed " by the transfer to a new business of building, machinery or plant previously used for any purpose ". But sub-s. (6) provided by way of an exception that where in the case of an industrial undertaking, any building, machinery or plant or any part thereof previously used for any purpose is transferred to a new business and the total value of the building, machinery or plant or part so transferred does not exceed 20% of the total value of the building, machinery or plant used in the business, then the condition set out in sub-s. (4) shall be deemed to have been complied with and the total value of the building, machinery or plant or part so transferred shall not be taken into account in computing the capital employed in the industrial undertaking. So far as the applicability of s. 80J to profits derived from a ship was concerned, sub-s. (5) laid down seve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny liability in respect of tax), not being, (a) in the case of an assessee being a company, the amount of its debentures, if any, and (b) in the case of any assessee (including a company) any moneys borrowed from an approved source for the creation of a capital asset in India, if the agreement under which such moneys are borrowed provides for the repayment thereof during a period of not less than seven years. Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-rule, (i) 'approved source' means the Government or the Industrial Finance Corporation of India or the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. or any banking institution or any person in country outside India or any of the following financial institutions, namely: (a) a State Financial Corporation established under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (LXIII of 1951); (b) the Industrial Development Bank of India, established under the Industrial Development Bank of India Act, 1964 (XIX of 1964); (c) the Madras Industrial and Investment Corporation of India Limited ; (d) the Re-finance Corporation for Industry Ltd. (e) the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under the Life Insurance Corporation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apital employed in the industrial undertaking or the business of hotel, though other categories of borrowed monies and debts due by the assessee continued to remain excluded from such computation. These two changes appear to have been made in view of the Interim Report on Rationalisation and Simplification of Direct Taxation Laws by Shri S. Bhoothalingam, where a recommendation was made that instead of the formula which was being followed up to 31st March, 1968, it would be desirable to simplify the procedure for computation of capital " by basing it on owned capital and long-term borrowings as at the beginning of the year, ignoring the fresh introduction of capital in the course of the year ". This state of affairs continued until April 1, 1971, when the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971, came into force. While introducing the Bill which ultimately culminated in the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971, the Finance Minister made a policy statement on the floor of the House in the following terms : "At present, in the case of new industrial undertakings, ships and approved hotels, profits up to 6 per cent. of the capital employed are entitled to tax exemption for a period of five years. Since deben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome assessees raised a contention for the first time that on a true construction of sub-s. (1) of s. 80J, the capital employed in the industrial undertaking or the business of a hotel would include long-term borrowings, since according to plain natural construction of the words used, they were part of the " capital employed " and rule 19A, sub-rule (3), in so far as it excluded long-term borrowings from the computation of the capital employed was, therefore, ultra vires sub-section (1) of s. 80J and despite sub-rule (3) of rule 19A, long-term borrowings were liable to be taken into account in computing the " capital employed " in the industrial undertaking or the business of a hotel. This contention was raised for the first time before the Bombay Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Alim Chand Topan Dass v. ITO and the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal by an order dated 24th July, 1973, accepted this contention and held that sub-rule (3) of rule 19A was in conflict with sub-s. (1) of s. 80J and, hence, it was liable to be ignored in computing the capital employed in the industrial undertaking or the business of a hotel. This decision was, however, reconsidered by a Special Benc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entury Enka Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 107 ITR 909, took the view that what s. 80J, sub-s. (1), required was the computation of the capital in respect of the previous year and not as on the first day of the previous year and, therefore, rule 19A, in so far as it provided that the computation of capital should be made as on the first day of the computation period, was ultra vires sub-s. (1) of s. 80J. This view was also adopted by one or two other High Courts. Since some High Courts took the view that rule 19A was ultra vires sub-s. (1) of s. 80J in so far as it provided for exclusion of long-term borrowings and the computation of the " capital employed " to be made as on the first day of the computation period and in the opinion of the Government, this view was erroneous and did not correctly reflect the intention of Parliament as evinced clearly by the legislative history of this provision, Parliament, with a view to avoiding confusion and uncertainty which would prevail in the state of the law until a final pronouncement was made on these two issues by the Supreme Court, introduced an amendment in s. 80J by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980. While moving the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1980, the F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etermining the tax holiday profits. I am, therefore, satisfied that no change in this regard is called for." The Finance (No. 2) Bill of 1980, ultimately culminated in the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, and by this Act s. 80J was amended and sub-s. (1A) was introduced with retrospective effect from April 1, 1972. The newly introduced sub-s. (1A) was in the same terms as rule 19A, so that the manner of computation of the " capital employed " in an industrial undertaking or the business of a hotel or a ship remained the same but it was now set out in sub-s. (1A) instead of in rule 19A. The words " computed in the prescribed manner " which occurred in sub-s. (1) of s. 80J were also substituted by the words "computed in the manner specified in sub-s. (1A) " with retrospective effect from the same date, namely, 1st April, 1972. Mr. Palkhivala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, in some of the writ petitions pointed out that the expression " capital employed ...... in respect of the previous year " has two dimensions, namely, dimension of quantum and dimension of time. So far as regards the dimension of quantum, Mr. Palkhivala urged that the expression " capital emplo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was required to take into account additional capital which might be employed during the computation period. So far as the amended sub-section (1A) introduced in s. 80J was concerned, Mr. Palkhivala submitted that this amendment made with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1972, was unconstitutional as being violative of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. We need not set out here the specific grounds on which the amended sub-s. (1A) was assailed by Mr. Palkhivala as offending articles 14 and 19(1)(g), since on the view we are taking in regard to the validity of rule 19A, it is not necessary for us to examine these grounds urged by Mr. Palkhivala. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the other writ petitions reiterated the same grounds with only this difference that, according to Dr. Debi Pal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in one of the writ petitions, the " capital employed" would include not only long-term borrowings as submitted by Mr. Palkhivala but also short-term borrowings so that all borrowed monies and not just long-term borrowings were liable to be taken into account in computing the " capital employed ". Dr. G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0J and moreover the rules made by the Central Board in that behalf were required to be placed before each House of Parliament for its approval and there was, therefore, no excessive delegation involved in subs. (1) of s. 80J leaving it to the Central Board to prescribe how the " capital employed " should be computed and what items should be included and what items excluded. It was also submitted by the learned Attorney General that the words used in sub-s. (1) of s. 80J in regard to the computation of the " capital employed " were not " capital employed during the previous year " but " capital employed .... in respect of the previous year. The words " respect of the previous year " were deliberately introduced in sub-s. (1) of s. 80J, when that section came to be enacted with the result that the " capital employed " that was required to be computed for the purpose of s. 80J was the " capital employed in respect of the previous year ". Rule 19A was, therefore, according to the learned Attorney General, not in conflict with sub-s. (1) of s. 80J when it provided that the " capital employed " in respect of the previous year shall be computed as on the first day of the previous year. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od of 19 years was that all borrowed monies due from the assessee were excluded in computing the " capital employed " and no one challenged such exclusion as being in conflict with either s. 15C or s. 84. It is undoubtedly true that merely because for a long period of 19 years, the validity of the exclusion of borrowed monies in computing the " capital employed " was not challenged, that cannot be a ground for negativing such challenge if it is otherwise well-founded. It is settled law that acquiescence in an earlier exercise of rule-making power which was beyond the jurisdiction of the rule-making authority cannot make such exercise of rule-making power or a similar exercise of rule-making power at a subsequent date, valid. If a rule made by a rule-making authority is outside the scope of its power, it is, void and it is not at all relevant that its validity has not been questioned for a long period of time: if a rule is void, it remains void whether it has been acquiesced in or not. Vide Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Attorney-General for Canada [1931] AC 310 : Attorney-General for Australia v. Queen (95 CLR 529). But when we are pointing out that for a period of 19 ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Computation of Capital of Industrial Undertakings) Rules, 1949, provided for exclusion of borrowed monies in the computation of "capital employed ", Parliament did not make any change in the statute with a view to clarifying that borrowed monies were not intended to be excluded. Even when the I.T. Act. 1961, was enacted, Parliament continued to use the same language in s. 84 as it did in s. 15C and did not make any change in the language with a view to indicating that the Indian Income-tax (Computation of Capital of Industrial Undertakings) Rules, 1949, which had been made under s. 15C did not correctly reflect the intention of Parliament. If Parliament had thought that the Indian Income-tax (Computation of Capital of Industrial Undertakings) Rules, 1949, in so far as they provided for exclusion of borrowed monies were not in conformity with its intention, Parliament could have easily made specific provision indicating its intention in the clearest terms when it enacted s. 84 in the I.T. Act, 1961. Even after the enactment of s. 84, when r. 19 was made with a view to giving effect to s. 84, that rule again excluded borrowed monies from computation of the " capital employed ". It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or disapproval. It is not possible to believe that despite the statement of the Finance Minister on the floor of the House and the placing of the amending Rule before each House, Parliament was not aware as to what the amended r. 19A provided. Parliament must be presumed to have known that r. 19A was amended in accordance with the statement of the Finance Minister and the amended r. 19A provided for exclusion of borrowed monies in computing the " capital employed " and yet Parliament, if it thought that such exclusion was contrary to its true intent, did not take any steps to rectify the position. Then again, while moving the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1980, the Finance Minister stated on the floor of the House that the intention of Parliament has always been to exclude borrowed monies in computing the " capital employed " and, therefore, s. 80J was sought to be amended by incorporating r. 19A in the section with retrospective effect. This legislative history traced by us clearly shows beyond doubt that Parliament throughout, save in respect of the period from April 1, 1968, to March 31, 1972, approved of exclusion of borrowed monies in computing the " capital employed " as being in con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by Mr. Palkhivala was " The Internal Finance of Industrial Undertakings," by T. G. Rose, where it is stated that the total money in the business at any moment or the " total capital employed " is to be found in the figure recorded at the foot of the assets column in the balance-sheet, less any fictitious assets ". This passage equates " total capital employed " with the total money in the business at any moment. It is significant to note that the reference here is not just to " capital employed " but to " total capital employed ". Moreover, this expression has been used in the context of performance evaluation through profit resource ratio and this is made amply clear by passage which occurs subsequently in the same text book, where it is observed that the " question of whether the T.C.E. is owned or borrowed is immaterial for this control figure. The company is employing so much capital in its trading, and, therefore, that capital must run over, through sales, to an extent sufficient to provide a proper return on that capital." Mr. Palkhivala also cited an, extract from " Terminology of Cost Accountancy " published by the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants, U.K. (October, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Then, reliance was placed on Principles and Practice of Management Accountancy " by J. L. Brown, Financial Manager's job " by Elizabeth Marting and Robert E. Finley and " Glossary of Management Accounting Terms." by the Institute of Cost & Works Accounting of India, where the expression " capital employed " is understood to mean share capital, retained profit and long-term borrowings. But, it may be pointed out that, in these text-books also, the expression " capital employed " has been used in the context of efficiency of business which is naturally measurable by considering what is the profit derived from deployment of the total funds in the business and, since long-term borrowings are also deployed in the business, the profitability of the undertaking cannot be evaluated without taking into account such long-term borrowings which have gone in the earning of the profit. It is significant to note that even in " Principles and Practice of Management Accountancy " by J. L. Brown, there is a highly revealing statement that in regard to "capital employed", " there is a good deal of controversy among accountants over which items should be included ". We may then refer to another tex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s " Book Keeping and Accounts ", but these extracts do not more than show that in certain contexts, the expression " capital employed " would include long-term borrowings. Now, the learned Attorney-General, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, did not dispute the proposition that in a given context, the expression " capital employed " may include long-term borrowings. But his contention was that this expression has no fixed definition connotation would necessarily include long-term borrowings and that in a given situation, it may include long-term borrowings or it may not. The meaning and content of the expression "capital employed" would, contended the learned Attorney-General, depend upon the context and the circumstances in which it is used. The learned Attorney-General pointed out, and in our opinion rightly, that the various passages relied on by Mr. Palkhivala, in support of his contention, dealt mostly with business management and profitability and in those passages, the expression " capital employed " was used in the context of business efficiency and performance evaluation with a view to measuring profitability by determining the capital output ratio and that is the reason....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be defined as net worth plus long-term loans " but the author maintains that "the effective capital, or capital employed in business ... or the net worth ... is always equal to the original capital plus retained profit less any loss that may have been incurred ". So also in Business Accounting I, by B.E. Elliott, the expression "capital employed " is used in senses more than one and it is pointed out that the income used to calculate the rate of return must be appropriate to the capital employed to generate that income. Carter in his book on " Advanced Accounts " (5th edn., by Douglas Garbutt) utters a warning against, describing a borrowing, whether long-term or short-term, as capital. He says: " Money borrowed by means of ordinary loans, mortgages, debentures, bonds, etc., is frequently spoken of as loan capital. Most accountants, however, consider it loose to describe such a liability as capital ". We find that Palmer also in his " Company Law " disapproves of the expression " loan capital " and emphatically states that this phrase, though frequently used in business circles, is in the eyes of a lawyer a contradiction in terms, because it is difficult to see how a debt can ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loyed". It is interesting to note that even during the period from April 1, 1968, to March 31, 1972, when rule 19A, sub-rule (3), stood unamended, it is only borrowings from an approved source repayable within not less than seven years which were includible in the computation of " capital employed " and not all long-term borrowings. If the contention of Mr. Palkhivala were correct that all long-term borrowings invariably and in all cases formed part of the " capital employed " and were liable to be included in the computation, the unamended sub-rule (3) of rule 19A in so far as it excluded long-term borrowings, other than those from an approved source and repayable within not less than seven years, would be invalid as being in derogation of the provisions of s. 80j, sub-s. (1). But the validity of the unamended sub-rule (3) of rule 19A was at no time challenged on behalf of the assessees and Mr. Palkhivala and the learned counsel supporting him did not seem to contend that the unamended sub-rule (3) of rule 19A was invalid. Once it is conceded that the Central Board of Revenue was within its authority in including certain categories of long-term borrowings and excluding certain ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted out that, in this statute, the word "computed " has been used in relation to the " capital of the company " and not in relation to the " capital employed " but that would make no difference, because what we are concerned with here is the sense in which the word "computed " has been used and whether it involves the process of exclusion as well as inclusion and on that point, the Act analogically throws considerable light. The statutory deduction which must be made from the chargeable profits for the purpose of determining the charge of surtax under this statute is defined to mean " an amount equivalent to ten per cent. of the capital of the company as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule and the Second Schedule, after its amendment by Finance Act, 1976 (66 of 1976), does not provide for inclusion of borrowed monies and debts in the computation of capital of the company though it, provides for inclusion of the paid up share capital and reserves. It will thus be seen that there is legislative history behind the use of the word " computed " in relation to the " capital employed " and it has been legislatively recognised as involving, as part of the proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce with the provisions of the Act, what is indubitably part of income cannot be excluded in the computation. However, the argument of Mr. Palkhivala was that in the case of definition of " total income ", the exclusion of items of income in the process of the, computation is provided for by the Legislature itself and is not purported to be done by any rule-making authority. The Legislature, stated Mr. Palkhivala, can cut down the width and amplitude of the expression " total amount of income " by expressly providing that a particular item or items shall be excluded in the computation of the total amount of income, but the rule-making authority cannot do so, because by doing so, it would be derogating from the provisions of the statute. Now, we have already pointed out that since the expression " capital employed " has a variable meaning which in a given case may or may not include borrowed monies, the Central Board could, in exercise of its rule-making power, exclude borrowed monies in the computation of the " capital employed " and in doing so, it would not in any way be acting contrary to the mandate of the statute. Bat the point which we wish to emphasise here, while referring ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." capital employed ". It is left by the Legislature to the Central Board as rule-making authority to prescribe the manner in which the " capital employed " shall be computed and in so prescribing, the Central Board may include or exclude items which may be regarded as forming part of the " capital employed". Mr. Palkhivala, however, contended, relying on the expression " computed in the prescribed manner ", that what is left by the Legislature to the Central Board is merely to prescribe the manner in which the " capital employed " shall be computed and " manner " can only mean mode in which the computation has to be made and under the guise of prescribing the mode of computation, the Central Board cannot, to use the words of Mr. Palkhivala, " encroach upon the substance of the statutory subject-matter " or " remould the substance of the capital employed ". Mr. Palkhivala, in support of this contention, relied on the meaning of the word IC manner " given in various dictionaries and also referred to various decisions including the decision of the Privy Council in Utah construction and Engineering Ply. Ltd. v. Pataky [1965] 3 All ER 650 (PC) and the decision of this court in STO v. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dule to that Act that the capital of the company shall consist of " its paid up share capital and its reserves ", thus excluding borrowed monies and debts. Similarly, under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, also, a specific provision was enacted in the Second Schedule to that Act that the capital of the company shall be computed on the basis of its paid up capital plus reserves so that, in consequence, borrowed monies and debts shall be excluded in the computation of the capital of the company. What the Central Board did in enacting sub-rule (3) of rule 19A was to follow the precedent set in these three statutes and to make a similar provision excluding borrowed monies and debts in the computation of the " capital employed ". The Central Board could not in the circumstances be said to have acted arbitrarily or whimsically or in an irrational or unusual manner in enacting sub-rule (3) of rule 19A as alleged by Mr. Palkhivala. It may be noted that under all the above three statutes, namely, the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, the Business Profits Act, 1947 and the Super Profits Act, 1963, interest on borrowed monies and debts was deductible in computing the profits and gains of the bus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued by it to the public : Provided that according to the terms and conditions of issue of such debentures, they are not redeemable before the expiry of a period of seven years from the date of issue thereof ; and (v) any moneys borrowed by it from Government or the Industrial Finance Corporation of India or the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India or any other financial institution which the Central Government may notify in this behalf in the Official Gazette or any banking institution (not being a financial institution notified as aforesaid) or any person in a country outside India : Provided that such moneys are borrowed for the creation of capital asset in India and the agreement under which such monies are borrowed provides for the repayment thereof during a period of not less than seven years." Thus it will be seen that when the amounts of the debentures and long-term borrowings from approved sources were included in the computation of the capital of a company, the amount of interest payable by the company in respect of such debentures and long-term borrowings was required to be added back to the total income for the purpose of arriving at the chargeable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d at levying additional tax over and above income-tax in respect of excess profits or super profits made by a company and since super profits or excess profits are profits in excess of a fair return on the owner's capital staked in the business, each of the four statutes, for determining the excess profits or super profits, provided specifically that the abatement from the profits shall be calculated by reference only to the assessee's own capital without taking into account any borrowed monies and debts. Mr. Palkhivala contended that since the Legislative intent was to give abatement from the profits only by reference to the assessee's own capital, the abatement was rightly calculated by reference only to the paid up capital and reserves, though in the case of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act 66 of 1976, the Legislature choose to be more liberal and allowed even debentures and long-term borrowings from certain approved sources to be taken into account in computing the capital of the company. But, said Mr.Palkhivala, the position is entirely different under sub-s. (1) of s. 80J, because the principal object of this stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... charges, they become part of the owner's capital partaking of the same characteristics as the capital originally brought in by the owner and there is no reason why a fair return should not be allowed on it. This has precisely been the argument advanced on behalf of the assessees in support of their contention that " capital employed " must include borrowed monies in sub-s. (1) of s. 80J. But this argument has not prevailed with the Legislature in the enactment of any of the above-mentioned four statutes and despite this argument, the Legislature has chosen to exclude borrowed monies in computing the " capital employed" or the capital of the company for determining what should be regarded as fair return so that profit in excess of such fair return may be subjected to additional tax. The Central Board cannot, therefore, be accused of any irrationality or whimsicality in providing that fair return on the " capital employed " eligible for exemption under sub-s. (1) of s. 80J should be calculated by applying the statutory percentage to the owner's capital, that is, the paid up share capital and reserves without taking into account long-term borrowings or for the matter of that, any bor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... encourage assessees to bring out their own monies for starting new industrial undertakings and the intention was not that the sees should be given relief with reference to monies which did not belong to them but which were borrowed from financial institutions and other parties and which would have to be repaid. Mr. Palkhivala then contended that if sub-s. (1) of s. 80J were construed as leaving late the Central Board to prescribe what items shall be included and what items excluded in the computation of the " capital employed ", it would be vulnerable to attack on the ground of excessive delegation of legislative power and would consequently be void. We do not think there is any substance in this contention, for there is in the present case no question of excessive delegation of legislative power. The essential legislative policy of allowing relief to an assessee who starts a new industrial undertaking or business of a hotel and declaring the period for which such relief shall be granted, is laid down by the Legislature itself in the various sub-sections of s. 80J and all that is left to the Central Board to prescribe is the manner of computation of the " capital employed " with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....situation. In a Cabinet form of Government, the executive is expected to reflect the views of the Legislature. In fact, in most matters it gives the lead to the Legislature. However, much one might deplore the 'New Despotism' of the executive, the very complexity of the modern society and the demand it makes on its Government have set in motion forces which have made it absolutely necessary for the Legislatures to entrust more and more powers to the executive. Textbook doctrines evolved in the 19th century have become out of date. Present position as regards delegation of legislative power may not be ideal, but in the absence of any better alternative, there is no escape from it. The Legislatures have neither the time, nor the required detailed information nor even the mobility to deal in detail with the innumerable problems arising time and again. In certain matters, they can only lay down the policy and guidelines in as clear a manner as possible." The validity of s. 3D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, was again challenged before this court in Hiralal Rattan Lal v. State of U.P. [1973] 31 STC 178 ; 2 SCR 502, on the same ground that it suffered from the vice of excessive delegat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....industry as a whole, the response of the industry to the grant of the relief, the adequacy or inadequacy of the relief granted in promoting the growth of new industrial undertakings, the state of the economy prevailing at the time, whether it is buoyant or depressed and administrative convenience. These are factors which may change from time to time and, hence, in the very nature of things, the working out of the mode of computation of the " capital employed " for the purpose of determining the quantum of the relief must necessarily be left to the Central Board which would be best in a position to consider what should be the quantum of the relief necessary to be given by way of tax incentive in order to promote setting up of new industrial undertakings and hotels and, for that purpose, what amount of the " capital employed " should form the basis for computation of such relief. Moreover, it may be noticed that under s. 296 of the I.T. Act, 1961, every rule made under the Act is required to be laid before each House of Parliament so that both Houses of Parliament have an opportunity of knowing what the rule is and considering whether any modification should be made in the rule or t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e State Governments. At the same time Parliament took care to see that these rules were laid on the table of Parliament fourteen days before they were to come into force and they were subject to modification, whether by way of repeal or amendment on a motion made by Parliament during the session in which they are so laid. This makes it perfectly clear that Parliament has in no way abdicated its authority, but is keeping strict vigilance and control over its delegate." It will thus be seen that there is no question of excessive delegation of legislative power in the present case and, even on the view as to interpretation taken by us, sub-s. (1) of s. 80J cannot be assailed as unconstitutional on the ground of excessive delegation of legislative power. We must, therefore, hold that sub-r. (3) of r. 19A in so far as it provided for exclusion of borrowed monies and debts and particularly long-term borrowings in the computation of the " capital employed" could not be said to be outside the rule-making authority conferred on the Central Board under sub-s. (1) of s. 80J and was a perfectly valid piece of subordinate legislation. That takes us to the second point urged by Mr. Palkhivala ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the previous year as " the relevant amount of capital employed during the previous year ", but that is merely a description given to the amount calculated as provided in the main part of sub-s. (1) of s. 80J and in the main part, we find the words " in respect of the previous year " and not " during the previous year ". It may be pointed out that the words " in respect of the previous year " were introduced for the first time when s. 80J came to be enacted as a result of the Report of Shri S. Boothalingam, where he recommended that the prevailing " base for the calculation of profits, namely, average 'capital employed' in the business during each year " was complicated and difficult to establish and it was, therefore, desirable to adopt the basis of computation of the of capital employed " as at the beginning of the year but ignoring the fresh introduction of capital in the course of the year ". It was following upon the introduction of the words " in respect of the previous year ", in subs. (1) of s. 80J that r. 19A was made providing for the computation of the de capital employed " as on the first day of the computation period. Moreover, if we refer to the definition of " stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns, we think it would be fair and just to direct each party to bear its own costs of the writ petitions. AMARENDRA NATH SEN J.-I have had the benefit of reading the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Bhagwati J. I regret I cannot persuade myself to agree. The material facts have been fully stated in the judgment of my learned brother. My learned brother, in his judgment, has set out all the relevant provisions of the I.T. Act and the I.T. Rules. He has also traced the legislative history of s. 80J of the I.T. Act, 1961, and has noted the various amendments effected to that section from time to time. It does not, therefore, become necessary to reproduce the same at any length in my judgment. The two questions which fall for determination are: "(1) Whether rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules in so far as the said rule excludes borrowed capital and fixes the first day of the year in the matter of computation of capital employed for the purpose of relief under section 80J is valid ? (2) Whether the amendment introduced in s. 80J by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980, incorporating in the section the provisions of the rule in relation to the exclusion of borrowed capital and the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the authority conferred under s. 295 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Section 295 lays down: " (1) The Board may, subject to the control of the Central Government, by notification in the Gazette of India, make rules for the whole or any part of India for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters ........... It may be noted that the matters mentioned in sub-s. (2) do not refer to s. 80J of the Act. The relevant provisions of s. 80J as it stood prior to the impugned amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980 material for the purpose of the present proceedings may be set out: "(1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking or a ship or the business of a hotel, to which this section applies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains (reduced by the aggregate of the deductions, if any, admissible to the assessee under section 80H and section 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the circumstances and within the period specified in that section : Provided further that, where any building or any part thereof previously used for any purpose is transferred to the business of the industrial undertaking, the value of the building or part so transferred shall not be taken into account in computing the capital employed in the industrial undertaking Provided also that in the case of an industrial undertaking which manufactures or produces any article specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule, the provisions of clause (iii) shall have effect as if for the words 'thirty-three years', the word ' thirty-one years ' had been substituted." I propose to take up first the question of the validity of the rule. consider this will be the proper course to adopt. If the rule is held to be valid, the question of the amendment with retrospective effect may not require any consideration at all. If, on the other hand, the rule is held to be invalid, the question of the validity of the amendment assumes vital importance. The invalidity of the rule, on the basis of the arguments advanced, may also have a bearing in deciding the validity or otherwise of the amendment. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preting the provisions for gathering the true intention of the law-giver. It is stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edn., Vol. 44, in para. 858 at p. 523, as follows: " If the words of a statute are ambiguous, then the intention of Parliament must be sought first in the statute itself, then in other legislation and contemporaneous circumstances, and finally in the general rules laid down long ago, and often approved, namely, by ascertaining: (1) what was the common law before the making of the Act; (2) what was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide; (3) what remedy Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth; and (4) the true reason of the remedy." As on a fair reading of s. 80J, I am satisfied that the section is sufficiently clear and the language used therein suffers from no ambiguity, it does not become necessary for me in the instant case to consider at length the principles of interpretation which are required to be observed in construing an ambiguous statute. The material provisions of s. 80J of the I.T. Act, prior to the impugned amendment by the Finance Act, 1980, have been earlier set out. The relevant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntention is made manifestly clear, as relief has to be granted on the basis of the profits and gains earned by the undertaking in the previous year by virtue of employment of capital in the undertaking in the previous year. The capital employed in the undertaking which qualifies for relief under this section clearly refers to and must necessarily be the capital employed in the undertaking in the previous year for the purpose of earning the profits. If the capital employed in the undertaking is own capital, such capital qualifies for relief. If capital employed is borrowed capital, such capital will equally qualify for relief. If capital employed consists of assessee's own capital and also borrowed capital, the capital so employed, the assessee's own and borrowed, will both qualify for the relief. The capital employed in the undertaking in the previous year which qualifies for relief under this section has to be computed in the manner prescribed. There is nothing in the section to suggest or indicate that in prescribing the manner of computation of the capital employed in the undertaking for the purpose of relief, any part of the capital which was employed in the undertaking for pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng set up with borrowed capital or with capital part of which may be borrowed will not be entitled to the benefits of this section. An industrial undertaking which satisfies all the conditions laid down in sub-s. (4) will undoubtedly be entitled to the benefits of s. 80J. An undertaking with borrowed capital can also very well satisfy the conditions of sub-s. (4) and qualify for the relief, as there is nothing in this sub-section which prevents an undertaking set up with wholly or partly borrowed capital from fulfilling the conditions laid down in the sub-s. (4). An undertaking satisfying all the conditions in sub-s. (4) and thereby qualifying for relief if, however, set up with borrowed capital, will be denied the relief to which the undertaking in terms of the clear provisions of the section is justly entitled, merely on the ground that the rule prescribed for computing the relief excludes the borrowed capital in the computation of the capital employed for the purpose of granting the relief under this section. In other words, an industrial undertaking qualifying for the relief under s. 80J by virtue of the clear and unambiguous provisions made in the section will be denied the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for its construction. It may, however, be pointed out that this interpretation not only makes perfect sense but also clearly promotes the object for which this section was incorporated. To my mind, the object of s. 80J which indeed replaces the earlier s. 84 which came in place of s. 15C of the earlier I.T. Act, is to give impetus and encouragement to the setting up of new industrial undertakings by offering tax incentives or tax reliefs. The object clearly is to encourage persons to setup new industrial undertakings for rapid industrialisation of the country by offering incentives in respect of undertakings covered by this section by way of grant of tax relief on the capital employed in such undertakings. In the case of Textile Machinery Corporation v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195 (SC), this court, while considering the object of a similar provision in s. 15C, observed at page 202 : " The principal object of section 15C is to encourage setting up of new industrial undertakings by offering tax incentives within a period of 13 years from April 1, 1948. Section 15C provides for a fractional exemption from tax of profits of a newly established undertaking for five assessment years as spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the provisions of the section and the provision regarding the manner of computation does not empower or authorise the rule-making authority to lay down which part of the capital employed or how much of it will have to be included or excluded and to what extent, if any. The question whether there should be any such exclusion or inclusion in the matter of consideration of the grant of relief, is essentially a matter of policy for the Legislature to decide and is not matter for the rule-making authority to prescribe. The power of the rulemaking authority in terms of the provision contained in s. 295 of the I.T. Act which confers such power is limited to the framing of rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The rule-making authority is not competent to prescribe any rule which will be in the nature of a substantive provision of the Act itself and more particularly, which will be in conflict with the substantive provision of the section itself and which will in any way defeat or frustrate the purpose for which any provision in the Act has been enacted. In the instant case, I am clearly of the opinion on a construction of s. 80J that the said section unequivocally and in clear t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to an extent which cannot be permitted. I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the rule-making authority does not enjoy any such power or jurisdiction. No such power or jurisdiction in the absence of specific provision and clear guideline in the Act could be delegated to the rule-making authority. In the case of STO v. Abraham [1967] 20 STC 367 ; [1967] 3 SCR 518, this court had the occasion to construe the meaning of the phrase " in the prescribed manner " occurring in s. 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In dealing with the vires of rule 6 of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1967, in so far as the said rule purported to prescribe a time-limit within which the declaration was to be filed by the registered dealer, this court held (p. 372 of 20 STC): "In our opinion, the phrase 'in the prescribed manner' occurring in s. 8(4) of the Act only confers power on the rule-making authority to prescribe a rule stating what particulars are to be mentioned in the prescribed form, the nature and value of the goods sold, the parties to whom they are sold, and to which authority the form is to be furnished. But the phrase 'in the prescribed manner' in s. 8(4) does no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence of specific provision in the section itself or in the absence of any statutory provision, cannot exclude any part of the capital employed in the undertaking at its discretion under the guise of the process of prescribing the manner of computation. The argument of the learned Attorney-General that as an undertaking which employs borrowed capital gets relief because in calculating the profits and gains the interest paid on the borrowed capital is taken into account, the rule-making authority in prescribing the manner of computation of the capital employed is entitled to exclude borrowed capital to avoid grant of double relief to the undertaking, is without any merit. Interest paid on borrowed capital by any undertaking, whether it is an undertaking within the meaning of s. 80J or not, is taken into account as business expenditure in calculating the profits and gains of any undertaking. is the prescribed mode of calculating the profits and gains of every undertaking and is no special benefit for any undertaking., and, undoubtedly, it affords no incentive or special relief to a new undertaking which has necessarily to satisfy the required conditions laid down in s. 80J for being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de or exclude borrowed capital at the discretion of the rule-making authority in the absence of any statutory provision or guideline, becomes bad on account of unjustified excessive delegation of authority. This decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has not proceeded to construe s. 80J correctly to gather the true intention of Parliament before deciding the question as to whether the rule excluding borrowed capital is consistent with the intention of Parliament clearly expressed in s. 80J. In my opinion, the mere existence of an invalid rule without any challenge for any length of time does not affect the question of validity of the rule and cannot render a rule otherwise invalid to be valid only on the ground that the rule had remained in existence without any challenge for a number of years. In the case of Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Attorney-General for Canada [1931] AC 310, the judicial Committee while considering the vires of a statute, namely, Combines Investigation Act R. S. Can. 1927, c. 26 passed by the Parliament of Canada, observed at p. 317: "Both the Act and the section have a legislative history, which is relevant to the discussion. Their Lordships....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the case may be, as may be made by the Parliament or the State Legislature. Even so, we do not think that where an executive authority is given power to frame subordinate legislation within stated limits, rules made by such authority if outside the scope of the rule-making power should be deemed to be valid merely because such rules have been placed before the Legislature and are subject to such modification, amendment or annulment, as the case may be, as the Legislature may think fit. The process of such amendment, modification or annulment is not the same as the process of legislation and in particular it lacks the assent either of the President or the Governor of the State, as the case may be. We are, therefore, of opinion that the correct view is that notwithstanding the subordinate legislation being laid on the table of the House of Parliament or the State Legislatures and being subject to such modification, annulment or amendment as they may make, the subordinate legislation cannot be said to be valid unless it is within the scope of the rule-making power provided in the statute. " The other impugned provision of the rule, prescribing that capital employed should be compu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... day of the computation period. So far as s. 80J is concerned, it does not give any such indication. That apart, such computation of capital employed in an industrial undertaking would defeat the very purpose of the undertaking and would lead to incongruous and anomalous results. While an assessee who has employed capital in an industrial undertaking on the very first day but has withdrawn it for the major part of the year would be entitled to the full benefit, an assessee who has not employed the capital on the first day but has employed it during the major part of the previous year would be deprived of the benefit. If the intendment of the Act is to give tax holiday for the new industrial undertaking with a view to help them find their roots and encourage entrepreneurs to establish new industrial undertakings and pave the way for rapid industrial growth in the country, then that purpose would be not served. In fact, it would be defeated if the capital employed is computed with reference to the first day of the computation period and not in respect of the previous year relevant to the assessment year. " The Calcutta High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court have both held this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere is no merit in the submission of Dr. Pal. It is entirely a matter for Parliament to decide whether any relief by way of incentive should be allowed and, if so, to what extent and in what manner. There is no obligation on the part of Parliament to make any provision for granting relief to promote new industries. The Legislature in its wisdom may decide to grant relief and may equally decide not to grant any relief. It is essentially for the Legislature to decide as to whether any incentive for promoting industrial growth of the country is called for and if the Legislature feels that in the situation prevailing in the country, such incentive should be provided, it will be again for the Legislature to decide what kind of incentive and in what form and to what extent the same should be provided and to pass appropriate legislation in this regard. Parliament would have been legally competent to withdraw the entire relief under s. 80J and to abrogate the said section in its entirety, if Parliament had considered such withdrawal to be necessary. Parliament is equally competent to increases or reduce the quantum of relief intended to be given under this section. In providing that relief....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee an unjust, unmerited and accumulated huge financial liability, cannot be considered to be reasonable; and such imposition of accumulated liability will seriously affect the financial stability of the undertakings and will further create various other difficulties which may be almost impossible for the assessees to overcome. It has been argued that the present amendment has not been necessitated as a result of any provision of the statute being declared ultra vires for any lacuna in the statutory provision and there is no question of any liability being foisted on the Government Of refunding any large sum of money collected as tax from the assessees on account of any statutory provision imposing any levy being declared invalid or unconstitutional. It is submitted that in view of the unequivocal provision of the statute granting relief to borrowed capital which was sought to be negated and denied by an invalid rule which has been struck down, the assessees are legitimately entitled to the relief and they have rightly and justifiably arranged their affairs on the basis of the law as it stood. The existence of an invalid rule and the pendency of appeals in this court against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertakings which qualified for relief under s. 80J to enjoy the benefit intended to be conferred by the section. It is the submission of the learned Attorney-General that in the absence of any valid rule prescribing the manner of computation of the relief to which the assessee may be entitled under s. 80J, the benefit cannot be computed and, therefore, no benefit contemplated under s. 80J may be at all available to the assessees. He submits that if the rule is held to be valid by this court, in these appeals, the argument of the assessee that the assessee has arranged its affairs on the basis of invalidity of the rule will be of no avail ; and he further submits that if the invalidity is upheld by this court in these appeals, the assessee in the absence of any valid rule prescribing the manner of computation of the relief will not be entitled to the benefit of any relief under the section. It is, his submission that, in these circumstances, Parliament with the object of seeing that the assessee who is entitled to any relief under s. 80J is not denied such relief over these years for lack of provision of a suitable rule prescribing the manner of computation of such relief, has amende....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....land may be retroactive if the legislature clearly so intends. If the retroactive feature of a law is arbitrary and burdensome, the statute will not be sustained. The reasonableness of each retroactive tax statute will depend on the circumstances of each case. A statute retroactively imposing a tax on income earned between the adoption of an amendment making income taxes legal and the passage of the Income-tax Act is not unreasonable. Likewise, an income-tax not retroactive beyond the year of its passage is clearly valid. The longest period of retroactivity yet sustained has been three years. In general, income-taxes are valid although retroactive, if they affect prior but recent transactions. Basing himself on those observations, Mr. Setalvad contends that since the period covered by the retroactive operation of the Act is between April 1, 1950, and September 25, 1961, it should be held that the restrictions imposed by such retroactive operation are unreasonable, and so, the Act should be struck down in regard to its retrospective operation. We do not think that such a mechanical test can be applied in determining the validity of the retrospective operation of the Act. It is conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atute amounts to the contravention of the citizens' fundamental right; and in dealing with such a question, the court may have to take into account all the relevant and surrounding facts and circumstances in relation to the taxation. " In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax v. Buckingham & Carnatic Co. Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 603 (SC), it was observed at p. 620 : "It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the retrospective operation of the law from July 1, 1963, would make it unreasonable. We are unable to accept the argument of the petitioners as correct. It is not right to say as a general proposition that the imposition of tax with retrospective effect per se renders the law unconstitutional. In applying the test of reasonableness to a taxing statute, it is of course a relevant consideration that the tax is being enforced with retrospective effect but that is not conclusive in itself." In the case of Krishnamurthi & Co. v. State of Madras [1973] 31 STC 190, this court observed at p. 197 : " The object of such an enactment is to remove and rectify the defect in phraseology or lacuna of other nature and also to validate the proceedings, including realisatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be judged on the merits of the amendment in the light of the facts and circumstances under which such amendment is made. In considering the question as to whether the legislative power to amend a provision with retrospective operation has been reasonably exercised or not, it becomes relevant to enquire as to how the retrospective effect of the amendment operates. In the larger interest of administration and for promotion of public interest and welfare of the country, power has been conferred by the Constitution on Parliament to mobilise resources and to levy taxes. In view of the complexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse elements, Parliament necessarily enjoys a very wide discretion in the matter of fiscal legislation. To meet various expenses for proper administration, maintenance of defence and security, for promoting peace and prosperity and for development of social, economic and all-round growth of the country, the Government must have resources and sufficient funds at its disposal. Suitable provisions have necessarily to be made for raising the revenue and for proper realisation of funds to be collected to meet such expenses. Appropriate legislation including various fis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal employed, whether assessee's own or borrowed, in an undertaking which qualified for relief under the section. The rule-making authority by framing an invalid rule sought to deny the assessee the benefit of the relief lawfully and validly granted by the section. The rule was contrary to the clear provisions of the statute and the invalid rule has been rightly struck down. By the present amendment, Parliament is seeking to validate not any provision of the statute declared invalid because of any flaw or defect, as there was none, but is seeking to validate an invalid rule which had sought to deprive the assessee of the benefit which Parliament had clearly bestowed on the assessee by the section. The effect of the present amendment by seeking to incorporate the provisions of the rule declared invalid in the section itself is to withdraw with retrospective effect the relief which had been earlier granted by Parliament in so far as the relief extends to borrowed capital employed in the undertaking and thereby to impose on the assessee a burden of tax which was not there for all these years. As a matter of policy, it may be open to Parliament to withdraw the relief granted to borrowe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the industrial growth of the country by affording incentive for the setting up of new undertakings. As a matter of policy again Parliament may withdraw such relief or any part thereof or modify the nature, extent and kind of relief, if Parliament in its wisdom may consider any such action necessary and proper and any such act done by Parliament must also be regarded to have been done in public interest. However, the withdrawal or modification with retrospective effect of the relief properly granted by the statute to an assessee which the assessee has lawfully enjoyed or is entitled to enjoy as his vested statutory right depriving the assessee of the vested statutory right has the effect of imposing a levy with restrospective effect for the years for which there was no such levy and cannot, unless there be strong and exceptional circumstances justifying such withdrawal or modification, be held to be reasonable or in public interest. This kind of retrospective amendment, seeking to defeat an accrued statutory right, is likely to affect the sanctity of any statutory provision and may create a state of confusion. The only circumstance which appears to have led to the present retrospe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is bound to create a serious financial problem for the assessee. Apart from the heavy financial burden which is likely to upset the economy of the undertaking, the assessee will have to face other serious problems. On the basis that the relief was legitimately and legally available to the assessee, the assessee had proceeded to act and to arrange its affairs. If the relief granted is now permitted to be withdrawn with retrospective operation, the assessee may be found guilty of violation of the provisions of other statutes and may be visited with penal consequences. This position cannot be and is not disputed by the learned Attorney-General who has, however, argued that taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances, penal provisions may not be enforced. This argument does not impress me. The assessee has, in any event, to run the risk and for no fault on his part has to place itself at the mercy of the authorities for facing consequences of violation of the statutory provisions, which but for the introduction of retrospective amendment, would not have been violated by the assessee. To establish arbitrariness or unreasonableness, it does not become necessary to pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and confusion. Such withdrawal in effect results in the imposition of a levy at a future date for past years for which there was no such levy in the relevant years. The imposition of any fresh tax with retrospective effect for years for which there was no such levy is bound to operate unduly harshly on every assessee who is entitled to arrange and normally arranges his financial affairs on the basis of the law as it exists. Such retrospective taxation imposes an unjust and unwarranted accumulated burden on the assessee for no fault on his part and the assessee has to face unnecessarily without any just reason very serious financial and other problems. Imposition of any tax with retrospective effect for years for which no such tax was there, cannot also be considered to be just and reasonable from the point of view of the Revenue. The years for which levy is sought to be imposed with retrospective effect had already passed and there cannot be any proper justification for imposition of any fresh tax for those years. Such retrospective taxation is likely to disturb and unsettle the settled position; and because of such imposition of retrospective levy for the years for which there wa....