RELEVANCE OF DOCTRINE OF ‘PARI MATERIA’ IN TAX LAWS

[Dr. Sanjiv Agarwal]

While there is a general rule that any statute must be read as a whole in itself as the person who interprets the law is also suppose to understand the context. The doctrine of pari materia is the extension of this principle of interpretation. The concept of pari materia permits the reference to other statutes which are in pari materia covering the statutes dealing with the same subject matter or same system of taxation.

Taking clue from judicial pronouncements, statutes are in pari materia which relate to the same person of thing, or to the same class of persons or things. The word par must not be confounded with the word simlis. It is used in opposition to it-intimating not likeness merely but identity. It is a phrase applicable to public statutes or general laws made at different times and in reference to the same subject.

When the two pieces of legislation are of differing scopes, it cannot be said that they are in pari materia. Also, it is not necessary that the entire subject matter in the two statutes should be identical before any provision in one may be held to be in pari materia with some provision in the other.

The application of this rule has the merit of avoiding any apparent contradiction between a series of statutes dealing with the same subject.

P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon has captured the meaning and scope of doctrine of pari materia in the following words :

• Pari materia means in connection with the same subject (e.g., "these two regulations are in pari materia because they regulate the same activity".
• Subsequent legislation can be looked at to ascertain proper interpretation to be put upon earlier Act when there is obscurity or ambiguity. STATE OF BIHAR VERSUS S.K. ROY - 1966 (4) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT.
• Acts in pari materia should be taken together as forming one system and as interpreting and enforcing each other. JK. STEEL LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA - 1968 (10) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT.
• Provisions of Section 154 of Income-tax Act (43 of 1961) relating to rectification of mistake are pari-materia to Section 35-C(2) of the Act. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA VERSUS ASCU LTD. - 2002 (12) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT. [Central Excise and Salt Act (1 of 1944), S. 35-C(2)]
• On the doctrine of 'pari materia' reference to other statutes dealing with the same subject or forming part of the same system is a permissible aid to the construction of provisions in a statute. [AHMEDABAD PVT. PRIMARY TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION   VERSUS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND ORS.  - 2004 (1) TMI 639 - SUPREME COURT].
• The provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1916 are not in pari materia with those of the English Income-tax statutes so that the decisions of the English Acts are not useful. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND EXCESS PROFITS TAX, MADRAS VERSUS SOUTH INDIA PICTURES LIMITED -1956 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT.
• Decisions under two Acts in pari materia when there is no analogy between provisions on the subject between the Acts, cannot be availed of while interpreting the provisions of the other. AIR 1967 SC 908.

In COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR VERSUS M/S UNIVERSAL FERRO & ALLIED CHEMICALS LTD. & ANR. - 2020 (3) TMI 375 - SUPREME COURT, it was held that definition of one statute having a different object, purpose and scheme cannot be applied mechanically to another statute. The court observed that it is a settled principle in Excise classification that the definition of one statute having a different object, purpose and scheme cannot be applied mechanically to another statute. It has further been held, that the conditions or restrictions contemplated by one statute having a different object and purpose should not be lightly and mechanically imported and applied to a fiscal statute.[Relied upon: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S CONNAUGHT PLAZA RESTAURANT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI - 2012 (12) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT ].

In KISHAN LAL AND ORS VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS - 1990 (3) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS SUNDARAM SPINNINGS MILLS - 1999 (12) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT, it was held that it is well-known law that the Legislature has power to define a word even artificially.

In HOTEL & RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION VERSUS STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. - 2006 (11) TMI 540 - SUPREME COURT, it has been held that the definition of a term in one statute cannot be used as a guide for construction of a same term in another statute, particularly in a case where statutes have been enacted for different purposes. It has also been held in EAGLES CHICORY (FIRM) VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EX. & CUS., MADURAI - 1986 (7) TMI 358 - CEGAT, NEW DELHIthat it is no sound principle of construction to interpret an expression used in one Act with reference to its use in another Act, since the meaning of words and expressions used in an Act must take their colour from the context in which they appear.

In COMMERCIAL TAXATION OFFICER, UDAIPUR VERSUS RAJASTHAN TAXCHEM LTD. - 2007 (1) TMI 187 - SUPREME COURT, it was held that the definition of a word in the definition section may either be restrictive of its ordinary meaning or it may be extensive of the same. When a word is defined to 'mean' such and such, the definition prima facie is restrictive and exhaustive, [Also see: COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, UP. AND ANOTHER VERSUS KAJARIA CERAMICS LTD. (AND ANOTHER APPEAL) - 2005 (7) TMI 351 - SUPREME COURT].