9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in internal and export auctions and varying rates of duty were fixed on tea produced in the respective Zones. Originally, the group areas were divided into three zones. In 1962, they were divided into 5 zones. Later by "the Notification of 1970" changes were made in the rates of excise duty on tea produced in different zones. At the relevant time Dibrugarh was a Sub-Division in the District of Lakhimpur and the rate of duty for Lakhimpur district was Rs. 1.30. The relevant extract of the Table creating group areas into zones, place of production and rate of duty, is set forth below :- "Zone Place of production Rate of duty per Kilograms (Rupees) (1) (2) (3) I. *** *** *** Any other areas in the territory of India other than areas included in Zones II, III, IV and V 0.60 II. *** *** ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort auctions of tea in India, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, group areas into Zones for the purpose of assessment of tea produced in such areas." (Emphasis supplied). 4. The Rule is an enabling provision empowering the Central Government to group areas into Zones for the purpose of assessment of tea produced in such areas after taking into consideration the weighted average sale price of tea in the internal and export auctions. Before making such a notification the Government took into consideration. The relevant factors set forth in "the Rules". The Central Government is the sole authority competent to group areas into zones, and it may do so "from time to time" by notification in the Official Gazette. 5. After issuance of 1970 Notification, Government of Assam by Notification dated 22-9-1971 formed a new administrative district known as the District of Dibrugarh which comprised the Sub Division of Dibrugarh in the erstwhile District of Lakhimpur, with its headquarters at Dibrugarh. The erstwhile District of Lakhimpur comprised within it, the Sub Divisions of (l) North Lakhimpur, (2) Dhemaji and (3) Dibrugarh. By the notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; (Emphasis supplied) 6. On scrutiny of the notification dated 5-11-1981, we find that before issuing it, the Central Government took due regard to the weighted average sale price of tea in the places of production, created new zones, made drastic changes in the existing zones relating to different areas. The Central Government issued the notification on due and proper application of mind, noted the changes brought about in the zones as well as the places of production, after the issuance of "1970 Notification." The petitioners claim that the Central Government issued the notification with full knowledge of the various changes, historical facts and with full knowledge of the formation of the District of Dibrugarh which was not only a geographical unit but a historical fact. Notwithstanding the accomplished fact, the District of Dibrugarh was not brought in any of the zones covered by Zones I to IV, although it had already formed a separate and independent district, as far back as on October 2, 1971, whereas the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V and fixed the rate of duty at Rs. 1.30 per kilogram. The District of Dibrugarh created over 8 years ago was not brought in any of the zones. Later, by notification dated January 28, 1982, the Central Government, in exercise of its power under "the Act" and "the Rules" brought the District of Dibrugarh in Zone V. 8. Mr. J.P. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate General Nagaland concluded his arguments on behalf of the petitioners, thereafter, Dr. D. Paul, learned Counsel argued a new and reiterated the contentions and supplemented them. The first contention of learned Counsel is that since the Sub-Division of Dibrugarh ceased to form a part of the District of Lakhimpur and made separate and independent district, the said areas ceased to be within Zone V and automatically transferred to the residuary zone. As such, since October 2, 1971, till 5-11-1981 the petitioners were liable to pay Excise duty for tea prescribed for the residuary zone, that is at the rate of Re. 0.60 per kilogram. The second contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that at any rate, the notification dated November 5, 1981, which was made after 8 years of the formation of the new District of Dibrugarh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m time to time. Learned Counsel has very rightly conceded that by the expression "the District of Lakhimpur" in the Notification of 1970, the Central Government meant the geographical or physical area comprised within the said district as demarcated by the State Government. As such, according to learned Counsel the expressions "the Districts of Lakhimpur" comprised in it, the three sub-divisions, including the sub-division of Dibrugarh. However Dr. Paul has submitted that no sooner the new District of Dibrugarh was carved out of the old District of Lakhimpur, the former ceased to be a part of the district of Lakhimpur as set out in the Notification of 1970 and fell within the residuary zone. Any other view, according to learned Counsel would be contrary to the expressed language of the Notification dated May 1, 1970 read with the Assam's Notification dated September 22, 1971. Various Government reasons in support of the contention have been ascribed by Dr. Paul, which we shall consider in due course. 9. We have been called upon to give constructions as to the true meaning of the expressions "the Districts of Lakhimpur" contained in the notifications and the effect of the notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which they used have used. ...But the words must be sensibly interpreted. We do not sit here to make nonsense of them." (Emphasis supplied) 10. We would give the words their natural meaning unless the context otherwise requires. We shall presume that every word used in the notification was used precisely and exactly, not loosely and inexactly, unless we are satisfied that in the context loose and inexact meaning must be preferred. If we find that the words are clear they must be followed. But where alternative constructions are equally open that alternative shall be accepted which would be consistent, with the smooth working of the system which the notification purports to be regulating and that alternative is to be rejected that will introduce uncertainty, friction or confusion into the working of the system. The words used in the notification must be taken to be used in the sense they bore at the time when the notification were made. It is the rule of construction enunciated by Lord Esher in The Longford (1889) 14 PD 34 that : "The first point to be borne in mind is that the Act must be construed as if one were interpreting if the day after it was passed....". The Rule was quo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authority. We find the intention from the expressed words as understood on the following day of the making of the notification. The words used in the notification should be construed in the light of the facts known to the authority when the notification was issued. Therefore, when the notification was issued, the facts known to the authority was that the district of Lakhimpur comprised the physical area consisting of several sub-divisions, including the sub-division of Dibrugarh. We must assume that the authority making the notification had known the condition. The existing condition was not notoriously uncertain, and, therefore, we accept the contention of learned counsel for the parties that the words used in the notification should be understood in the sense they bore at the time when the notification was issued. The meaning as understood by the authority must continue to be the meaning until it is changed, altered or superseded by the authority itself. 12. However, Dr. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that the meaning of the expressions "the districts of Lakhimpur" as expressed by the rule making authority changed no sooner the Government c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... '. Until the Central Government altered the area or zone it continued to convey the same concept notwithstanding changes made by the notification issued by another in exercise of power under some other law. Even if the name of a district or sub-division is altered, changed or obliterated by another authority, the physical area of the district of the area would continue to remain the same for the purpose of Rule 96-F. Dr. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the opinion just expressed would be contrary to the expressed language of 1970 notification if read along with the notification of the State Government dated 22-9-1971. Why should one interpret the meaning of the expressions in Notification of 1970 along with another notification which has .had nothing to do with Rule 96-F of 'the Rules'. One should try to find the meaning of the words from the Notification and not from another notification, issued for different purposes. Further, if the notifications are to be read at all, they should be read separately and not conjointly. The notification of 1970 should be read to ascertain the group area, zones, the rate of duty, etc., for the purpose of the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought about by different authorities in respect of the description of the areas included in the zones. Could the authority while making the notification visualise that the districts of Lakhimpur would be bifurcated into two districts. Surely not. Therefore, by the expressions the authority never intended to mean any area larger or smaller than that visualised while it made the notification in 1970. We cannot assume that the authority could have visualised even a possibility of any changes, and, as such we are to accept the words as expressed in the notification and accept the meaning of the expressions as understood by the authority on the date of the making of the notification. Accordingly, the former sub-division of Dibrugarh, later formed an independent district, continued to remain within the district of Lakhimpur for the purposes of 'the Act' and 'the Rules'. We cannot also accept the contention of Dr. Paul that whenever a new district or sub-division is created by any Government, altering the name area or description of the sub-division or district it is bound to affect the notification issued under Rule 96-F of 'the Rules'. Such modification cannot affect the notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners has strong force. It was strenuously urged by Mr. J.P. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the petitioners and reiterated by Dr. Paul, that the subsequent notification dated 5-11-1981 issued under Rule 96-F of 'the Rules' included the district of Lakhimpur in Zone V and left out the district of Dibrugarh in any of the zones. It may be recalled that the district of Dibrugarh was made an independent district on and from October 2, 1971. We must apply the same rule of construction on which we rejected the first contention of the petitioners. We have looked at the whole notification and find that several changes were effected in the notification, the name of Madras was changed to Tamilnadu, various other materiel changes and alterations were made which were fait accompli and some areas were taken from one zone and transposed to other zones. We are to assume that the notification was issued on due, proper and adequate application of mind by the Central Government. We have noted the changes brought about in the notification and we are confirmed that the Central Government issued the notification with full knowledge of the various changes, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... residuary zones from 5-11-1981 to 28-1-1982. We accept the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 15. It was urged by Mr. S. Ali that there was omission to include the word 'Dibrugarh' in the notification, however, we should read the word in it. The basic rule is that the Court should not take upon itself to supply the omission, as this is to assume the function of legislature. We do not think that this is a case where the court in fact is entitled to rewrite the notification. The language of notification being plain and unambiguous, it is not open to us to read into it a word which is not there based on a prior reasoning as to the probable intention of the legislature. Such intention can be gathered only from the word actually used in the notification. In a court of law, what is unexpressed has the same value as what is unintended. This is the rule of construction expressed by their Lordships in Venkataraman v. State of Mysore - AIR 1980 SC 675 and Mahadeolall v. Administrator General, WB -AIR 1960 SC 936. It has been ruled in C.S.T. v. Parson Tools and Plants - (1975) 4 SCC 22 that it is the duty of the court to give effect to words used without scanning t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
