A Taxing Statute cannot be struck down merely on the ground that the imposition is heavy vide Jagannath and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), . There are several Taxing Statutes which may be harsh, but they cannot be held to be unconstitutional for that reason. Thus, when a Sales Tax law is made under which the dealer cannot pass on the incidence of the tax to the purchaser, this will not make the law unconstitutional vide S. Kodar Vs. State of Kerala, and (Paras 12 to 14) and Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, . A Stamp Act, as already observed above, is a Taxing Statute and as regards a Taxing Statute it is well-settled that equity has no place in it. As observed by Rowlatt, J., in his classis statement in Cape Brady Syndicate v. IRC (1921) 1 KB 64 . “There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read. In nothing is to be implied” and this view has been approved by our Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Ajax Products Ltd. through its Liquidator, and Banarasi Devi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Calcutta.
The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. V. Mr. P. Firm, Muar, , observed that equity is out of place in tax laws. In The Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow Vs. Sh. Madho Pd. Jatia, , the Supreme Court held that there could be no consideration of equity if the language of the provision was plain and clear. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and Others Vs. Shahzada Nand and Sons and Others, , the Supreme Court observed that while interpretating a Taxing Statute one cannot go by the notion as to what is just and expedient.
In Smt. Tarun Lata Sham v. CIT 108 ITR 345 SC , as it would then be taking on the role of the legislature. If there is a casus omissus the defect can only be remedied by legislation, vide S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and Others, . The Supreme Court held in these cases, that where there was a lacuna in the Act, that could not be filled up by the Court, but only by the legislature.