TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of amendment in section 10B, with effect from 1st April 1999, this benefit was available for 'ten consecutive years' and since the assessee had completed only five years of exemption under section 10B, the assessee was also eligible for further exemption for next five years. This claim was declined by the Assessing Officer by observing that the amendment, enhancing the number of eligible assessment years to 'ten' did not provide for retrospective amendment, and, accordingly, the benefit of ten years cannot be granted in the present assessment year. It was also observed that admittedly legal provision, as it stood in the relevant assessment year, provided for benefit of exemption under section 10B for five consecutive assessment years. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal before us. 3. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and deliberated upon factual matrix of the case as well as applicable legal position. 4. The basic thrust of assessee's submissions is that the Legislature clearly intended to 'extend' the benefit of exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is nothing to suggest that the Parliament intended to extend the period of benefit to the existing units, as learned counsel as strenuously argued. We are thus urged to confirm the orders of the authorities below and decline to interfere in the matter. 5. We find that it is not in dispute that the substitution of 'ten consecutive assessment years' in the place of 'five consecutive assessment years' was effective from 1st April, 1999 and that the law, as it stood at the beginning and even at the end of the relevant assessment year, provided for the benefit for five consecutive assessment years only. It is fairly well-settled that the general rule is that all statutes, other than those which are declaratory or procedural, are prospective and that retrospective effect is not to be given to the statute unless by express words such intention of the Legislature is unambiguous. In the case of Saurashtra Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [1990] 186 ITR 634, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has summed up this principle by observing as follows: "The law is very clear that, unless provided by the statute, the law is always presumed to be prospective in nature. There cannot be any imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stence and in the export business. Such a proposition may be unreasonable but then there is nothing 'in the statute' to conclusively establish that the intent of the Legislature was more than that and that the amendment was specifically with a view to enhance the tax holiday period of existing units which have exhausted the benefit of section 10B for five consecutive years. Learned counsel submitted that such a view will be inequitable, but then, as are the famous words of Rowlett, J, "in a taxing Act one has to look at merely what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied, One can only look fairly at the language used", In any event, we are of the considered view that there is no support for the factual element embedded in assessee's submissions about the 'true intent of Legislature'. Whether an omission can be inferred or not could perhaps be construed as a debatable question but it is well-settled that the intent is not to be inferred and that the same must be found in the plain and unambiguous words. There is nothing before us to establish assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appears in consequence to have been unintentional". Their Lordships then observed that "In other words, under the first principle, a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court except when reason for it is found to be in the four corners of the statute itself but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute". In the present case, the reason for casus omissus is admittedly not in the statute itself but, as we could make out, only because, according to the assessee, there is no good reason for excluding the existing EOUs from the benefit of extended period. Even going by the principles enunciated in National Taj Traders case, this cannot be a reason enough for the casus omissus. It is not that interpreting the time limit in section 10B as 'ten consecutive assessment years' with effect from 1st April, 1999 would, to use the words approved by Their Lordships, 'defeat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty of the Court in to interpret the words that the Legislature has used. Those words may be ambiguous, but, even if they are, power and duty of the Court to venture outside them on a voyage of discovery are strictly limited; see, for instance, Assam Railways Trading Co. Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (2) and particularly the observations of Lord Wright [1935] AC 458... ...What the Legislature has not written, the court must write, and fill in the gaps. This proposition, which restates in a new form the view expressed by the lord justice in the earlier case of Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher (to which lord justice himself refers) cannot be supported. ...It appears to me to be naked usurpation of Legislative function in the thin guise of interpretation and it is less justifiable when it is guesswork with what material the Legislature would, if it had to discover the gap, have filled it in. If a gap is disclosed, the remedy lies in an amending Act..." Lord Denning's aggressive definition of the power of the Courts, so far as question of casus omissus is concerned, was severely criticized by Lord Simonds and other law lords in the above case. Lord Morton observed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
