9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (8) TMI 78 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxInterpreted the word used in the Andhra Pradesh Non-Agricultural Lands Assessment Act, 1963 Held that - We are in no doubt whatever, therefore, that it is only land which is actually in use for an industrial purpose as defined in the said Act that can be assessed to non-agricultural assessment at the rate specified for land used for industrial purposes. The wider meaning given to the word used in the judgment under challenge is untenable. Having regard to the fact that the said Act is a taxing statute, no court is justified in imputing to the Legislature an intention that it has not clearly expressed in the language it has employed. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the judgment and order under challenge is set aside in so far as it deals with the interpretation of the word used in section 3 of the said Act.
Issues:
Interpretation of the word "used" in the Andhra Pradesh Non-Agricultural Lands Assessment Act, 1963. Analysis: The judgment in question dealt with the interpretation of the term "used" in the Andhra Pradesh Non-Agricultural Lands Assessment Act, 1963. The issue arose from a previous decision by a Bench of five judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which interpreted "used" to include lands "meant to be used" or "set apart for being used" for non-agricultural purposes. This interpretation was challenged in the appeals by industries in Andhra Pradesh and their Federation. The Act defined "industrial purpose" and "non-agricultural land" and specified rates of assessment based on land usage for different purposes. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had previously held that the term "used" in the Act had a wider meaning, encompassing lands designated for future industrial or commercial use. However, a subsequent Bench of two judges sought a reconsideration of this interpretation, leading to the matter being heard by a Bench of five judges. The latter upheld the broader interpretation, stating that non-agricultural lands intended for industrial use were also subject to assessment under the Act. The judges rejected the argument that fiscal legislation should be strictly interpreted in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the legislative intent behind the Act. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a strict construction of taxing statutes, citing precedents that cautioned against reading additional meanings into such laws. The Court reiterated that only land currently in use for industrial purposes, as defined by the Act, could be assessed accordingly. The broader interpretation of "used" was deemed untenable, as it went against the principles of interpreting taxing statutes. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the previous judgment's interpretation of the term "used" in section 3 of the Act.
|
