9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the appeals. Held that: - The language of the notification is crystal clear. That means, there is no ambiguity in the language employed in the notification by the authority issuing the notification. A plain reading of the notification would demonstrate that the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of his powers under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act, has exempted levy of tax payable under the Act on the sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products by the roller flour mills within the State for a period of five years from the date of the notification, namely, 02.05.1991 - This Court has reiterated in numerous decisions that if the language of the notification or an executive order is clear and unambiguous, the Courts need not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wheat products by the roller flour mills within the State for a period of five years. 4. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assessing Authority, the assessee had carried the matter by way of appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeals and has set aside the orders of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 by the orders dated 29.06.1993 and 31.01.1994, respectively. 5. The Revisional Authority, being of the opinion that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue had initiated proceedings by invoking Section 20(1) of the Act, inter alia, di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order had approached the High Court in Special Appeal Nos.12 and 13 of 1995. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has liberally interpreted the first notification and modified the language employed therein so as to achieve the intention behind the issuance of the said notification and held that the exemption stipulated under the first notification is not applicable and available to the assessee and thus, rejected the appeals and confirmed the orders passed by the Revisional Authority, dated 16.10.2003. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis and perused the documents on record. 9. In order to resolve the controversy between the parties, at the outset ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products by the roller flour mills within the State for a period of five years from the date of the notification, namely, 02.05.1991. (emphasis supplied by us) 11. The Revisional Authority as well as the High Court accept that the language of the notification is clear, but resort to interpreting the notification in light of the intention behind its issuance and proceed on the presumption that the State Government was made to issue the aforesaid notification in order to give an advantage to the dealers in the State of Andhra Pradesh who deal in sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products. According to the Revisional Authority as well as the High Court a roller flour mill would be entitled for e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd unambiguous, there is no need to resort to the object and purpose of the enactment because in such a case, the language best declares the intention of the law-giver. 15. In Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. CCE, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 716, this Court has observed that: Where the words of the statute are plain and clear, there is no room for applying any of the principles of interpretation which are merely presumption in cases of ambiguity in the statute. The court would interpret them as they stand. The object and purpose has to be gathered from such words themselves. Words should not be regarded as being surplus nor be rendered otiose. Strictly speaking there is no place in such cases for interpretation or construction except where the words ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equent notification issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.561, dated 26.03.1993. By the said subsequent notification, the State Government has found irregularities in the earlier notification and therefore thought it fit to withdraw the earlier notification. In light of such facts, in our considered opinion, neither the Revisional Authority nor the High Court is justified in going into the intention of the State Government for issuing the first notification. 19. In view of the above, we cannot sustain the orders passed either by the Revisional Authority or the High Court. Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the orders passed by the Revisional Authority and the High Court and restore the order passed by the First Appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
