TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the notification bringing into force the enhanced institution fees from the date of publication in the Gazette applied to plaints filed on the same day of publication.
Analysis: The notification used the expression "from the date of publication," which required construction of whether the named date was inclusive or exclusive. The governing interpretive principles were drawn from the Indian General Clauses Act, 1897, the Interpretation Act, 1889, and the common law rules on computation of time. The majority held that where a new state of things is to operate indefinitely, the words "from a named date" ordinarily include that date, and fractions of a day are not to be treated as controlling where the context does not require exclusion. On that construction, plaints filed on the date of publication were filed after the commencement of the enhanced fee regime.
Conclusion: The notification took effect on the date of publication, and plaints filed on that day were subject to the enhanced fees.
Dissenting Opinion: Kumaraswami Sastri, J. held that the notification should be construed in the light of justice and equity to exclude the date of publication, so that plaints received on 5 May 1922 would remain chargeable only at the old fee.
TaxTMI 
