9911796707
TMI BlogPrinciples of Strict ConstructionX X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs of the text's authors or ratifiers, and no more.Also termed (in senses 1 & 2) strict construction, literal interpretation; literal construction; restricted interpretation; interpretatio stricta; interpretatio restricta; interpretatio verbalis. 3. The philosophy underlying strict interpretation of statues.Also termed as close interpretation; interpretatio restrictive. See strict constructionism under constructionism. Cf. large interpretation; liberal interpretation (2). "Strict construction of a statute is that which refuses to expand the law by implications or equitable considerations, but confines its operation to cases which are clearly within the letter of the statute, as well as within its spirit or reason, not so as to defeat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apparent legislative intent'. We are alive to the fact that there may be overlapping in some cases between the aforesaid two rules. With certainty, we can observe that, 'strict interpretation' does not encompass such literalism, which lead to absurdity and go against the legislative intent. As noted above, if literalism is at the far end of the spectrum, wherein it accepts no implications or inferences, then 'strict interpretation' can be implied to accept some form of essential inferences which literal rule may not accept. [COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), VERSUS M/S. DILIP KUMAR- 2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT] Principles of Strict Construction Justice G.P. Singh, in his treatise 'Principles of Statutory Interpretation' (14th ed. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following words: "In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. This is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used." It was further observed: "In all tax matters one has to interpret the taxation statute strictly. Simply because one class of legal entities is given a benefit which is specifically stated in the Act, does not mean that the benefit can be extended to legal entities not referred to in the Act as there is no equity in matters of taxation…." Yet again, it was observed: "It may thus be taken as a maxim of tax law, which although not to be overs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant in construing a taxing statute, [CIT, W.B. v. Central India Industries, AIR 1972 SC 397], and similarly logic or reason cannot be of much avail in interpreting a taxing statute [Azam Jha v. Expenditure Tax Officer, Hyderabad, AIR 1972 SC 2319]. It is well settled that in the field of taxation, hardship or equity has no role to play in determining eligibility to tax and it is for the Legislature to determine the same [Kapil Mohan v. Commr. of Income Tax, Delhi, AIR 1999 SC 573]. Similarly, hardship or equity is not relevant in interpreting provisions imposing stamp duty, which is a tax, and the court should not concern itself with the intention of the Legislature when the language expressing such intention is plain and unambiguous [State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RT), VERSUS M/S. DILIP KUMAR- 2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT] The principles of strict construction have to be adopted for interpretation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "MCOCA"), which is a penal statute. However, it is no more res integra that even a penal provision should be interpreted to advance the object which the legislature had in view. The interpretation of Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 came up for consideration before this Court and Justice R.F. Nariman [2017 (7) TMI 1081 - SUPREME COURT] held as follows: 24. It is thus clear on a reading of English, U.S., Australian and our own Supreme Court judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and Control of Water Pollution v. Aandhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. AIR 1989 SC 611, p.614.] In a classic passage LORD CAIRIS stated the principle thus : "If the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Crown seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of law the case might otherwise appear to be. In other words, if there be admissible in any statute, what is called an equitable, construction, certainly, such a construction is not admissible in a taxing statute where you can simply adhere to the words of the statute". ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
