Strict construction of exemption notifications and limits on judicial rewriting of delegated legislation reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.

Courts cannot direct the executive or a delegated law-maker to alter the wording of an exemption notification, because framing or amending subordinate legislation lies within the legislative domain and must comply with separation of powers and Article 265. The High Court's direction to substitute the notification text was therefore beyond jurisdiction and was set aside. Exemption notifications must also be construed strictly on their plain terms; they cannot be expanded by judicial interpretation to replace one technical criterion with another. The exemption claim was remitted for fresh adjudication on the existing notification, with opportunity to adduce further evidence on factual entitlement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could direct the executive to alter the words of the exemption notification and read into it a different basis of exemption. (ii) Whether the notification granting sales tax exemption had to be read strictly on its plain terms, and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication on the existing notification.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could direct the executive to alter the words of the exemption notification and read into it a different basis of exemption.

Analysis: The power to frame or amend subordinate legislation lies within the legislative or delegated legislative domain. Courts cannot command the legislature or a subordinate law-making authority to enact or reframe a law in a particular manner. The constitutional scheme of separation of powers requires each organ to act within its own field, and Article 265 permits levy and exemption only according to law. The High Court, by directing substitution of the notification text, exceeded judicial limits.

Conclusion: The direction issued by the High Court was without jurisdiction and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the notification granting sales tax exemption had to be read strictly on its plain terms, and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication on the existing notification.

Analysis: Exemption provisions must be construed strictly and according to the words actually used. The notification could not be expanded by judicial interpretation to substitute one technical criterion for another. Since the assessment and appellate orders had proceeded on the basis of the existing notification, the matter had to be reconsidered de novo by the appellate authority on the same notification, with opportunity to adduce additional evidence on the factual entitlement to exemption.

Conclusion: The notification had to be applied as written, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded for the State, the High Court's judgment and the consequential orders were set aside, and the exemption claim was left to be decided afresh on the existing notification by the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts cannot direct a legislature or delegated law-maker to reframe subordinate legislation, and exemption notifications must be interpreted strictly on their plain language.

---