AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 49

13. Wide interpretation.-

The principle of broad interpretation of the entry conferring a power1 has been followed in a number of cases concerning various taxes.

1. Para. 12, supra.

By way of example, we may refer to judicial decisions relating to:-

(i) excise duty and sales tax;1-2

(ii) income-tax3; and

(iii) tax on goods and passengers, carried by road or internal waterways.4

1. Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1006.

2. (a) Sundaramiar & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1958 SC 468; (b) J.K. Jute Mills Co. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1534.

3. See para. 16, infra.

4. See paras. 19 to 20, infra.

14. Competence to devise machinery.-Another important consideration which should be borne in mind is that of enforcement. A legislature levying a tax is competent to devise a machinery for preventing its evasion, and to make provision for recovery and effective collection of the tax in question and for preventing its evasion.1

This is on the principle that so long as the character of the tax is not lost, an entry delineating a legislative field has to be widely and liberally construed, provided there is a reasonable nexus between the item taxed and the field so delineated.2

1. See para. 15, infra.

2. (a) Punjab D. Industries v. I.T. Commr., AIR 1965 SC 1862; (b) Navnit Lal v. App. Asst. Commr., AIR 1965 SC 1375.



The Proposal for inclusion of Agricultural Income in the Total Income for the purpose of determining the Rat of Tax under the Income-Tax Act, 1961 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys