Jurisprudence of Law in Tax Matters (GST and Customs).

1. Introduction: Understanding Jurisprudence in Tax Law

Jurisprudence, in the context of tax law, refers to the philosophical and interpretative principles that govern how tax statutes — like the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Customs laws — are conceived, interpreted, and applied by the legislature, judiciary, and tax authorities.

While taxation is a fiscal instrument of the State, it operates under the rule of law, meaning:

• No tax can be levied or collected except by authority of law (Article 265, Constitution of India).
• Tax statutes are to be strictly construed, but their application must reflect equity, economic reality, and fairness.

Thus, jurisprudence of tax law is the intersection of legal philosophy, constitutional limits, and judicial reasoning in fiscal matters.

2. Constitutional and Legal Foundation

A. Constitutional Basis

• Article 265: “No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.”
• Article 246A (post-GST amendment): Empowers both Parliament and State Legislatures to make laws on GST.
• Article 269A: Deals with inter-State trade and Integrated GST (IGST).
• Article 286: Restricts States from taxing inter-State and export transactions.
• Seventh Schedule (List I & II):
  • Union List (Entry 83, 84, 97) – Customs, excise duties, and residual taxes.
  • State List (Entry 54) – Taxes on sale of goods (now largely subsumed under GST).

B. Statutory Framework

• Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017:
  • Central GST (CGST), State GST (SGST), Integrated GST (IGST).
  • Harmonised structure replacing multiple indirect taxes (VAT, excise, service tax).
• Customs Act, 1962 and Customs Tariff Act, 1975:
  • Govern import/export duties, valuation, classification, exemptions, and anti-dumping measures.

3. Jurisprudential Principles in Tax Interpretation

Courts in India have evolved distinct principles of interpretation and jurisprudential doctrines that shape the administration of GST and Customs laws.

A. Strict Interpretation vs. Beneficial Construction

• Taxing statutes must be strictly construed — nothing can be taxed unless clearly covered by law.
• Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC (1921): “In a taxing Act, one has to look merely at what is clearly said.”
• However, exemption notifications and beneficial provisions are often interpreted liberally when intended to promote trade or public interest.
• Example: Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) — Supreme Court reaffirmed that ambiguities in exemption clauses must benefit the Revenue, not the assessee.

B. Substance over Form

• Courts often pierce the form of a transaction to uncover its true substance and economic reality, especially in cases of tax avoidance.
• McDowell & Co. v. CTO (1985): Tax planning is legitimate, but colorable devices for tax evasion are not.

C. Doctrine of Classification and Harmonisation

• In Customs and GST matters, classification disputes (under HSN codes) are common.
• Jurisprudence requires harmonious interpretation between tariff entries, explanatory notes, and trade understanding.
• Example: Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India (1976) — Emphasis on “common parlance test” for classification.

D. Principle of Natural Justice

• Tax adjudication must follow audi alteram partem (right to be heard).
• GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003): Procedural fairness is integral to fiscal jurisprudence.
• GST appellate and adjudication mechanisms are grounded in this doctrine.

E. Doctrine of Proportionality & Reasonableness

• Penalties, interest, and coercive measures must be proportionate to the offence.
• Courts have intervened where tax authorities impose excessive penalties or cancel registrations arbitrarily.
• Example: M/s Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021) — Supreme Court upheld the need for procedural fairness in GST provisional attachment.

4. Jurisprudence in GST Law

A. Nature of GST

• GST is a destination-based tax on consumption, harmonising indirect taxation across the Union and States.
• Jurisprudentially, it reflects cooperative federalism and economic unity, upheld by the Constitution (101st Amendment).

B. Emerging Legal Doctrines in GST

1. Doctrine of Input Tax Credit (ITC):
   • Treated as a concession, not a vested right (Jayam & Co. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2016).
   • Courts balance fiscal discipline with the taxpayer’s legitimate expectation of credit flow.
2. Principle of Seamless Credit:
   • Integral to GST’s philosophy; breaking this chain through arbitrary denials violates economic neutrality.
3. Judicial Review in GST Administration:
   • Courts regularly intervene against arbitrary cancellations, blockage of ITC, and coercive recovery under Article 226.
   • Example: M/s D.Y. Beathel Enterprises v. State Tax Officer (Madras HC, 2021) — held that denying ITC without confronting the supplier violates natural justice.
4. Constitutional Balancing:
   • GST jurisprudence tests the boundaries between Centre–State power, federal structure, and taxpayer rights.

5. Jurisprudence in Customs Law

A. Foundational Principles

• Customs law is primarily territorial and trade-oriented — balancing revenue interests with trade facilitation.
• Jurisprudence develops around valuation, classification, import/export restrictions, and anti-evasion mechanisms.

B. Key Jurisprudential Themes

1. Valuation and Transaction Value:
   • Based on WTO norms (Customs Valuation Agreement).
   • Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (2000): Transaction value can’t be rejected arbitrarily; must follow objective criteria.
2. Mens Rea in Penalty Proceedings:
   • Penalties under customs require clear evidence of intent to evade; negligence alone may not suffice.
3. Doctrine of Proportionality:
   • Confiscation and penalties must be proportionate to the breach.
4. Jurisdiction and Due Process:
   • Customs officers act as “quasi-judicial authorities”; adherence to due process is critical.
   • Collector of Customs v. East India Commercial Co. (1963): Reinforced that quasi-judicial decisions must be reasoned and fair.

6. Emerging Jurisprudential Challenges

1. Overlap between GST and Customs:
   • Import transactions trigger both customs duty and IGST — courts face interpretive challenges in avoiding double taxation.
2. Digital Economy & Cross-Border E-Commerce:
   • Jurisprudence is evolving on electronic supply, digital services, and cross-border data flows.
3. Retrospective Amendments:
   • Constitutional limits on retrospective tax laws are frequently litigated; jurisprudence emphasizes certainty and predictability in taxation.
4. Anti-Profiteering Jurisprudence:
   • Courts are developing principles on consumer protection, fair pricing, and judicial oversight of National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) decisions.

7. Conclusion

The jurisprudence of tax law in India, particularly in GST and Customs, reflects a transition from rigid fiscal formalism to a more balanced, rights-conscious, and economically contextual interpretation.

Indian courts have established that:

• Taxation must respect constitutional limits and natural justice.
• The State’s power to tax is vast but not arbitrary.
• Taxpayers’ rights to fair treatment, transparency, and proportionality form part of the modern jurisprudence of fiscal justice.

In essence, tax jurisprudence today is no longer only about revenue — it is about maintaining trust, fairness, and accountability in a rapidly evolving economy.

***