9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax for the entire month of May, 1982. He accordingly issued a notice of demand for a sum of Rs. 10,350, a copy of which has been filed as annexure I to the writ petition. Obviously this demand related to the assessment year 1981-82. It, however, further appears that in connection with the renewal of licence for the assessment year 1983-84, the Assistant Sugarcane Commissioner refused to renew the licence on the ground that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,350 for the assessment year 1981-82, is in arrears against the assessee. A copy of this show cause notice of intended refusal to renew the licence for the assessment year 1983-84 has been filed as annexure II to the writ petition. I, however, find that in the writ petition no grievance has been raised with regard to the refusal to renew the licence for the assessment year 1983-84, and therefore, so far as the present writ petition is concerned the said show cause notice, a copy of which has been filed as annexure II to the writ petition, is merely consequential to the aforesaid notice of demand for a sum of Rs. 10,350 for the assessment year 1981-82. Section 3 of the said Act is the charging section. In the case of an option ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the date specified under sub-rule (1-A), he shall give an intimation to this effect, in writing and under registered cover to the Sugar Commissioner, the Assistant Sugar Commissioner and the Assessing Officer, at least one week before the date specified. (2) Where the owner of a unit exercises the option, the quantity of sugarcane on the purchase of which he shall be liable to pay the tax shall be assumed on monthly basis according to specifications laid down to Schedule I: Provided firstly that in the first month of the working of the unit in any assessment year the quantity of sugarcane for the purpose of payment of tax shall be assumed from the date specified in declaration made under sub-rule (1) or changed under the first or the second proviso to that sub-rule, as the case may be: Provided secondly that in the last month of the working of the unit in any assessment year the quantity of sugarcane for the purpose of payment of tax shall be assumed upto the date which is intimated by the owner of a unit under sub-rule (1-A) or changed under the first or the second proviso to that sub-rule, as the case may be; and further that if the owner of a unit is found to have close ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Rules shows that the object underlying the aforesaid provisions is that necessary information of dates of start or closure of unit has got to be given a week before to the authorities concerned so that the Khandsari Inspector may inspect and verify the correctness of the intimation given to him under the said Rules and assess monthly tax accordingly, under sub-clause (2) of rule 13-A of the Rules. These Rules also contemplate more than one intimation if necessary of start or closure of a unit. Under the second proviso to sub-clause (2) of rule 13-A of the Rules it is further laid down that in case the owner of a unit is found to have closed his unit after the specified or changed date under sub-clause (1-A) the quantity of sugarcane for the purpose of 'payment of tax shall be assumed for the whole of such month. In other words, for default of not giving the requisite intimation at least one week beforehand or of not giving intimation to the authorities prescribed, that too in the prescribed manner, the unit holder renders himself liable to pay tax from the date of intimation of closure of unit till the last day of that month. Sri A.B. Saran, learned counsel appearing on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r phrase in a statute, it must not be viewed isolated from the context, it must be viewed in its whole context [see Jagir Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1976 SC 997 (1001)]. A statute must be so construed as to make its effective and operative on the principle expressed in the maxim: "ut res magis valeat quam pereat". The following observations of Viscount Simon, Lord Chancellor, L.J., in the case of Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries [1940] 3 All ER 549 (HL) at page 554 are worthy of note: "If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, we should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should rather accept the bolder construction, based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result." The principle underlying this rule has been given effect to and accepted by the Supreme Court in a large number of cases including in the case of Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal Corporation AIR 1966 SC 1678 at page 1682 wherein their Lordships have stated the principle as under: "It is well known rule of constructio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice presumably not intended a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words and even the structure of the sentence." Applying the above principles of construction of statutes and after a consideration of the scheme and of the Act and the Rules made thereunder it is clear that the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner has got force. In case the interpretation put by the petitioner is not accepted it will lead to a hazardous result inasmuch as after the first intimation of closure given by owner of the unit under the substantive clause (1-A) of the said Rules unforeseen circumstances or events might happen which could not be forestalled by owner of the unit one week before the date of first closure intimated by the petitioner. On the other hand if the interpretation sought to be put by the Standing Counsel is accepted it will lead to inconvenient, unjust and absurd results and such a construction of the words used in a statute are to be avoided. In my opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
