9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xport auctions and varying rates of duty were fixed on tea produced in the respective Zones. Originally, the group areas were divided into three zones. In 1962, they were divided into 5 zones. Later by "the Notification of 1970" changes were made in the rates of excise duty on tea produced in different zones. At the relevant time Dibrugarh was a Sub-Division in the District of Lakhimpur and the rate of duty for Lakhimpur district was Rs. 1.30. The relevant extract of the Table creating group areas into zones, place of production and rate of duty, is set forth below :- "Zone Place of production Rate of duty per Kilograms (Rupees) (1) (2) (3) I. *** *** *** Any other areas in the territory of India other than areas included in Zones II, III, IV and V 0.60 II. *** *** *** III. *** *** *** IV. *** *** *** V. District of Darrang excludin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... District of Dibrugarh which comprised the Sub Division of Dibrugarh in the erstwhile District of Lakhimpur, with its headquarters at Dibrugarh. The erstwhile District of Lakhimpur comprised within it, the Sub Divisions of (l) North Lakhimpur, (2) Dhemaji and (3) Dibrugarh. By the notification dated 22-9-1971, the Sub-Division of Dibrugarh was made a new administrative district with its headquarters at Dibrugarh and it ceased to form a part of the District of Lakhimpur. It was constituted a separate district carved out of the erstwhile district of Lakhimpur and styled as Dibrugarh District. The residuary portion of the erstwhile District of Lakhimpur formed into a separate district known as the District of Lakhimpur. The order came into effect from October 2, 1971. The petitioners claim that since the formation of the new District of Dibrugarh, which ceased to be a part of the District of Lakhimpur, the place of production of tea of the petitioners situated in the erstwhile Sub-Division of Dibrugarh, formed a new and separate district styled as Dibrugarh which ceased to be within Zone V. The said District of Dibrugarh, according to the petitioners did not fall in any of the places ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he formation of the District of Dibrugarh. Under these circumstances, the petitioners claim that the District of Dibrugarh which was not brought in Zones I to VI fall within the residuary Zone VII and the rate of duty was Re. 0.40 per kilogram, yet the respondents illegally, wrongfully and without any authority of law collected duty from the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 1.30 per kilogram and treated the district as comprising within the District of Lakhimpur. The petitioners had asked for relief to the Collector of Customs, but no relief was granted, they were asked to pay Rs. 1.30 per kilogram so they filed writ petition to the High Court of Calcutta asking for appropriate reliefs. During the pendency of the writ applications, the Central Government issued a notification dated 28-1-1982 declaring that in the Table annexed to the notification dated November 5, 1981 in Zone V in Column 2 for the words 'Districts of Lakhimpur', the words 'Districts of Dibrugarh Lakhimpur' shall be substituted. We extract the notification dated 28-1-1982 here-in-below :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-item (1) of Item No. 3 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght in Zone V but by no stretch of imagination on 5-11-1981, the District of Lakhimpur could include within it the new and separate District of Dibrugarh. As such, the petitioners contend that since 5-11-1981 the District of Dibrugrah, which was not placed in any of the zones fall within the residuary zone until the same was brought in Zone V by the notification dated January 28, 1982. Accordingly, learned Counsel submit that from 5-11-1981 to 28-1-1982, the petitioners were liable to pay duty at the rate of Re. 0.40 per kilogram. Although in the writ petitions, the validity of the notification dated January 28, 1982, was questioned but appropriately learned Counsel did not question its validity, rather the notification was made use of to reinforce and substantiate the second contention. However, it has been contended that notification dated January 28, 1982, was not retrospective and, therefore, the District of Dibrugarh was included in Zone V only on the date of the publication of the notification of the Official Gazette, therefore, the petitioners were liable to pay duty at the rate of Re 0.40 per kilogram fixed for the residuary zone from 5-11-1981 to 28-1-1982. Any duty realis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the words, and, secondly, their legal effect or the effect which is to be given to them. The meaning of the words is a question of fact but the effect of the words is a question of law. As stated by Lord Halsburry in Leader v. Duffey, (1881) 13 App. Cas 294 (301). "That, whatever, the instrument, it must receive a construction according to the plain meaning of the words and sentences therein contained. But I agree that you must look at the whole instrument inasmuch as there may be inaccuracy and inconsistency....." The words of a notification need be interpreted as bearing their plain and natural meaning, it should be construed in a manner to carry out the intention of the rule making authority. To discern the intention of the authority, words are to understood by looking at the subject matter they are speaking of and the object of the Rule making authority, as the word used with reference to another set of circumstances and another object might produce a different meaning in the ultimate analysis we reach the conclusion that where the words are unambiguous, the intention of the authority is best declared by the words incorporated in the notification, what the authority making ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le was applied in Kingstone Wharyes Ltd. v. Reynolds Janaicamines Ltd. - (1959) Ac 187. In our opinion the rule is also applicable in interpreting a notification issued under an Act. The rule has been called in aid to negative the meaning of one limb of a law on the ground that the law making authorities were dealing with an uncertain state of law when the notification was issued and the provisions of the law must be construed in the light of that uncertainty. If in construing a notification we attempt to find the intention of the authority then we must find that intention from the words which the authority used, and those words must be construed in the light of the facts known to the authority when the notifications was issued. One must assume that the authority making the notifications knows the condition. 11. With this backdrop let us construe the notification of 1970. It is the common case of the parties that the expressions "the districts of Lakhimpur" was used by the rule making authority as the urea comprising the physical boundary of the district including the sub-division of Dibrugarh. This is the natural meaning of the expressions. We also hold that the words "the distr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22-9-1971. The contention is unacceptable. If we accep it we must assume that the authority while making the notification of 1970, under Rule 96-F of "the Rules" used vague uncertain, inaccurate and inconsistent words in the notification. To accept the contention, we are to assume that the words used bore a flexible and ever changing meaning which is against the known rules of construction. We cannot assume that the rule making authority made an uncertain state of law. On a plain reading of the notification we do not find any intendment of the authority ever expressed that the expression "the districts of Lakhimpur" would be altered by any changes to be made by any other authority. It is also impossible to hold that "the rule making authority" could conceive of authorising any other authority to exercise the power under Rule 96-F of "the Rules", to change any area or zone into another area or zone as it has had no such power conferred in it by the rule. We cannot accept the contention that no sooner the State Government in exercise of its power altered an area into a district it affected the notification of 1970. The notification of 1970 carried the connotation until altered or cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication dated 22-9-1971 was within a particular zone or not, one is only to consider the notification dated May 1, 1970 and ascertaining the meaning of the expressions "districts of Lakhimpur" as it stood on the date of making of the notification and not to look at the notification dated 22-9-1971 made for another purpose. If any person desires to ascertain on or after 22-9-1971, whether the district of Dibrugarh was in any of the zones created by or for 'the Act' or 'the Rules', he is only to look at the notification dated May, 1970, and it would be crystal clear to him that the district of Dibrugarh which on the date of notification dated May, 1970 was within the district of Lakhimpur, continued to remain in the said district for the purpose of 'the Act' and 'the Rules'. We reiterate at the cost of repetation that the notification of 1970 did not use the words "the districts of Lakhimpur" to carry a fluctuating, ever changing and uncertain meaning liable to be changed from time to time by the acts or actions of other authority. We cannot assume that the intention of the notification making authority was to use the expressions "the district of Lakhimpur" to be a physical area lar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are converted into a zones on the basis of productivity or the quality of the tea produced, that is, having due regard to the weighted average sale price of tea grown in the area. The rate of duty leviable on tea manufactured in one zone is assessed at the rate applicable to the zone in which such leaves were grown : vide proviso (i) to the notification. As such, the quality of tea grown in the area is taken into consideration to put an area in a particular zone. Taking all the relevant considerations as to the nature and quality of tea grown in an area it is placed in an appropriate zone. The zones are not created at random. We are to construe the notification consistently with the smooth working of the system which the notification purports to be regulating and the alternative must be rejected which may introduce uncertainty, friction or confusion into the working of the system. The Government notification of 1971 was never brought on the basis of the relevant consideration as to the equality of tea produced in the area. As such, the said notification is irrelevant for construing the notification of 1970 made under Rule 96-F of the Rules. Two notifications on the same subject whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strict of Dibrugarh was carved out of the erstwhile district of Lakhimpur 8 years before the notification. Notwithstanding the accomplished fact, the Central Government did not bring Dibrugarh in any of the zones, although it became a separate and independent district on and from October 2, 1971. We are to construe the expressions `the Districts of Lakhimpur' conveying the meaning as it bore on the date of making of the said notification. Thus, interpreting we hold that by the expressions "the districts of Lakhimpur" the Rule making authority meant the area then known as the said district, which never included within it the district of Dibrugarh. We have no material to assume that on 5-11-1981, the rule making authority could use the expression 'the districts of Lakhimpur' as an area already known, styled and declared to be another independent and separate district. It would be too incongruous and notorious construction and as such we hold that the expressions 'the districts of Lakhimpur' used in the notification dated 5-11-1981 meant and included only the then district of Lakhimpur and never included the district of Dibrugarh. Our conclusion finds sufficient reinforcement from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g which is not congenial to or consistent with such express intent of the law giver. More so, if the statute is a taking statute. We must assume that the rule making authority does not commit mistake or make omission. We cannot accept the contention of the respondents that we can supply the word 'Dibrugarh' as the court cannot supply the supposed deficiency, for then the court, instead the declaring the law would be making laws vide Crowford v. Spooner - 6 Moor P.C. 1 in Tarulata Shyam v. C.I.T. - (1977) 3 SCC 305 the Supreme Court held that in a taxing statute one has to look merely at what is normally stated, there is no room for any intendment, there is no equity as to a tax, there is no presumption as to a tax, nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied, one can only look fairly at the language used. There is no scope for importing into the statute words which are not there. Even if there be casus omissus the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation. In Polestar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional A.S.T. (1978) 1 SCC 636 the Supreme Court relied on the rule laid down by Rowlatta J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate (supra) and have held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
