9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (1) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that section reads as follows: "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the tax under this Act shall be levied(a)................................. (b) in the case of purchase of any of the goods mentioned in column (2) of the third schedule, at the rate and only at the point specified in the corresponding entries of columns (4) and (3) of the said schedule, on the dealer liable to tax under this Act, on his turnover of purchases in each year relating to such goods." The relevant entry in the third schedule is entry No. 4 (raw wool), the point of levy being the purchase by the first or the earliest of successive dealers in the State liable to tax under that Act and the rate of tax being one per cent. The next relevant section is section 7, which as it stood prior to its amendment read: "The tax under this Act shall be levied on any transaction of sale or purchase deemed to take place inside the State under this Act or any other law for the time being in force. The provisions of this Act relating to taxation on sales or purchases inside the State only at a single point or only at one or more stages apply only to the sales inside the State." Section 7 was ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in either case it would be a tax on sales. They held that it is in that sense that the words "tax on sales" would appear to have been used in entry 48. In their Lordships' view entry No. 48 was of sufficient amplitude to authorise the levy of a tax on purchasers and therefore the Madras General Sales Tax Act which imposes a tax on the act of purchasing of goods is not ultra vires. When that decision went up to the Supreme Court in appeal (see V. M. Syed Mohamed Co. and Another v. State of Madras and Others[1954] 5 S.T.C. 108; A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 314.). the Supreme Court opined that entry No. 48 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, on a proper construction, was wide enough to cover a law imposing tax on the purchases of goods as well and the Constituent Assembly in entry 54 of List II in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution accepted this liberal construction of the corresponding entry 48 and expressed in clearer language which was implicit in that corresponding entry. We do not think that the Government Pleader could take much assistance from these decisions. It must be remembered that the Madras High Court as well as the Supreme Court were interpre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctness of the contention of the learned Government Pleader, we should like to take note of one circumstance which appears to us to be quite relevant. It must be remembered that the Legislature amended section 7 as per Act 32 of 1958. If it was the view of the Legislature that by oversight the word "purchase" had been omitted in the second part of section 7 of the principal Act, there was no difficulty for the Legislature to make that aspect clear. The amending provision could have conveyed that idea by appropriate language. The amendment could have been made retrospective in operation. The language employed in section 4 of the amending Act does not justify the conclusion that any legislative declaration was made by the Legislature. It purports to be an amendment, pure and simple. Nobody would have been in a better position to know about the failure to express the legislative intention properly in the principal Act than the Legislature itself. If the Legislature did not make it clear in the amending Act that there was any unintentional omission in the principal Act, it is difficult for this Court to say that the Legislature omitted to say something in the principal Act, which in fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been omitted, and the omission appears consequently to have been unintentional." Somewhat similar are the observations found in the Statutory Construction on Interpretation of Laws by Crawford in its fourth edition at page 269, paragraph 169, under the heading Casus Omissus. Crawford says thus: "Omission in a statute cannot, as a general rule, be supplied by construction. Thus, if a particular case is omitted from the terms of a statute, even though such a case is within the obvious purpose of the statute and the omission appears to have been due to accident or inadvertence, the Court cannot include the omitted case by supplying the omission. This is equally true where the omission was due to the failure of the legislature to foresee the missing case. As is obvious, to permit the Court to supply omissions in statutes, would generally constitute an encroachment upon the field of legislature. But, inasmuch as it is the intention of the legislature which constitutes the law of any statute, and since the primary purpose of construction is to ascertain that intention, such intention should be given effect, even if it necessitates the supplying of the omissions, provided, of course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acturing Co. Ltd., The Empress Mills, Nagpur v. Municipal Committee, WardhaA.I.R. 1958 S.C. 341., held that if in construing a taxing statute, there are two interpretations possible, then effect is to be given to the one that favours the citizen and not that imposes a burden on him. Sri D.M. Chandrasekhar, the learned Government Pleader urged that if we refuse to supply the omission pointed out, section 5(3)(b) would become otiose and hence the rules of construction require us to supply the omission; this is a case where the Legislature intended to include it but actually failed to use the language. It may be, that the Legislature intended to include "purchase " transactions also within the scope of the latter part of section 7 of the principal Act. But we cannot be positive about it. It will be seen from section 7 that the first part of that section takes within its fold "any transaction of sale or purchase deemed to take place inside the State under this Act or any other law for the time being in force", whereas the latter portion of that section speaks of "sales or purchases inside the State." It is not quite clear what distinction the Legislature had in mind when it used the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
