TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
- In PML Industries Ltd. Versus CCE - 2013 (4) TMI 101 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT,it was observed as under—
'A five Judges Bench of this Court in Ranjit Singh Versus State of Haryana and others - 2011 (1) TMI 1604 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT-LB, examining the condition of pre-deposit in availing right of appeal under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, held that while a right of appeal is a pure and simple statutory right yet once such alright has been conferred its applicability cannot be rendered illusory. It was held to the following effect:
21. On a conspectus of the decisions, relied upon by the learned counsel on both sides, it can be concluded that while a right of appeal is a pure and simple statutory right yet once such a right has been conferred its applicability cannot be rendered illusory.'
The Larger Bench in Ranjit Singh v State of Haryana (supra) referred toSUNIL BATRA Versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION - 1978 (8) TMI 228 - Supreme Court noticing the principle of reading down the provision so as to render it constitutional. The Larger Bench read down the provision of Section 13B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and held to the following effect:
'24. Resultantly, by reading down the provision, it is held that Section 13B of the Act would be read down to incorporate within it the power in appellate authority to grant interim relief in an appropriate case where, the grounds so exist by passing a speaking order, even while normally insistence may be made on pre-deposit of penalty. In adjudicating the whether in a particular case interim relief of stay of a portion or the entire penalty has to be granted, the appellate authority would have to give reasons why it proposes to dispense with the normal procedure of insistence of pre-deposit. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to consider the appeal in terms of the law set down above.'
Consequently, the second proviso in sub-section (2A) of Section 35C is ordered to be read down to mean that after 180 days, the Revenue has a right to seek vacation of stay on proof of the fact that the assessee is the one, who is defaulted or taken steps to delay the ultimate decision.
- In BR. Enterprises Versus State of UP. and Others - 1999 (5) TMI 498 - Supreme Court, it was held that the rule of reading down statutory provisions means that a statutory provisions is generally read down in order to save such provisions from being declared illegal or unconstitutional. The rule of reading down is in itself a rule of harmonious construction in a different name and generally used to straighten crudities or ironing out creases to make a statute workable. In the garb of reading down provisions not found in provision or statute and venture into judicial legislation. This rule should be used for limited purpose of making particular a provision it is not open to read words or expressions workable and to bring it in harmony wise other provisions of the statute. [Also see: Calcutta Guj. Education Society & Anr. Versus Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors - 2003 (8) TMI 476 - Supreme Court].