TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Any law is governed by the statute or the Act, as we know it. While the provisions have to be strictly interpreted, the legislative intention of the law is also equally important. For example, in case of service tax, the intention is to tax services but if any interpretation leads to taxation of goods or something which is not a service, the legal course would be to look at legislative intention as to what is sought to be achieved by the statutory provisions. In such case, legislative intention plays the deciding role.
In Balwant Singh v Jagdish Singh 2010 -TMI - 204330 – (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), it was held that provisions of statute including every word should be given full effect keeping legislative intent in mind to ensure to achieve projected object. No provision is treatable as enacted purposelessly. Courts can not give interpretation to provisions to render them ineffective or odious.
In CCE, Chandigarh –I v Punjab Steels 2010 -TMI - 78880 – (PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT), it was held that it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of statue more then what is stated in plain language. The words can not be added or substituted so as to give a particular meaning. The terms are specifically defined in and used in different provisions consciously. The argument that reading of terms in statute by analogy, ie, if in one provision a term is used, the same should be read in other provision as well where not specifically mentioned is not sustainable. Once the rule making authority has defined the terms specifically, the argument of analogy that same should be read in the other provision as well, where it has not been specifically mentioned, has no leg to stand. Reference can be made to the observations of a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mathuram Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1999) 8 SCC 667 :
'The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. It is not the economic results sought to be obtained by making the provision which is relevant in interpreting a fiscal statute. Equally impermissible is an interpretation which does not follow from the plain, unambiguous language of the statute. Words cannot be added to or substituted so as to give a meaning to the statute which will serve the spirit and intention of the legislature. The statute should clearly and unambiguously convey the three components of the tax law i.e. The subject of the tax, the person who is liable to pay the tax and the rate at which the tax is to be paid. If there is any ambiguity regarding any of these ingredients in a taxation statute then there is no tax in law. Then it is for the legislature to do the needful in the matter.'
In Mathuram Agarwal v State of MP AIR 2000 SC 109, it was observed that ‘the intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous . In a taxing Act, it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. It is not the economic results sought to be obtained by making the provision which is relevant in interpreting a fiscal statute. Equally impermissible is an interpretation which does not follow from the plain,unambiguous language of the statute. Words, cannot be added to or substituted so as to give a meaning to the statute which will serve the spirit and intention of the Legislature. . .
== = = = = = = = =