In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. A taxing statute cannot be interpreted on any presumption or assumption. A taxing statute has to be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any deficiency.
Where words of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, no interpretation other than literal rule shall apply
It is a settled principle of interpretation that the Court should neither add nor delete words from a statute. Where the words of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot […]
In Julius v. Bishop of Oxford (1880) 5 A.C. 214 it was observed by Cairns, L.C., at pp. 222-223 that the words “it shall be lawful” conferred a faculty or power, and they did not of themselves do more than confer a faculty or power.
§ 1. The Three Factors of Judging Good judgment A man of good judgment in a given set of affairs is a man in so far educated, trained, whatever may be his […]
When language of the provision is plain and unambiguous, the question of supplying ‘casus omissus’ does not arise
Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Shardindu held that when language of the provision is plain and unambiguous, the question of supplying ‘casus omissus’ does not arise and the Court can interpret a law but cannot legislate. Therefore, recent trend for supplying gape in legislation is concerned, the Court will be loath in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
It is clear therefore that S. 56 (2) deals with cases where there is a doubt in the mind of the collector in regard to an instrument which comes up before him under the above provisions of the Act as to the construction of the instrument and the provisions of the Act applicable to it. Such doubt itself shows that the point raised for the Collector’s decision is a difficult point of law and from the very nature of the duty to be performed in such circumstances it appears clear that the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority has to decide the matter Judicially and would thus be a quasi-Judicial tribunal.
In construing penal statutes and taxation statutes, the Court has to apply strict rule of interpretation.
That strict interpretation does not encompass strict literalism into its fold. It may be relevant to note that simply juxtaposing ‘strict interpretation’ with ‘literal rule’ would result in ignoring an important aspect that is ‘apparent legislative intent
If the words in the statute are plain and unambiguous, it becomes necessary to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense.
A dying declaration not being a deposition in Court, neither made on oath nor in the presence of the accused and therefore not tested by cross-examination is yet admissible in evidence as […]
Where a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner, and in no other manner
It is well settled that where a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner, and in no other […]
In Gujarat Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd. Versus Essar Power Ltd [AIR 2008 SC 1921 : (2008) 4 SCR 822 : (2008) 4 SCC 755 : JT 2008 (3) SC 336 : (2008) 3 SCALE 469] […]
In order to steer clear of the above interpretation of Section 11 (2) learned counsel for the employees put forward the argument that the word ‘or’ occurring in the section should not […]
It is equivalent to saying that in spite of the provision of the Act or any other Act mentioned in the non obstante clause or any contract or document mentioned the enactment following it will have its full operation or that the provisions embraced in the non obstante clause would not be an impediment for an operation of the enactment.
Stare decisis is a maxim among … lawyers, that whatever has been done before may legally be done again: and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against […]