Report No. 265

3. Interpretation of Taxation Laws

It is not possible to interpret the provisions of s. 64(IA) of the Act, 1961 in any other manner as the language used therein is neither ambiguous nor open to two interpretations. In interpretation of fiscal statutes, equitable considerations are not relevant at all. More so, logic or reason cannot be of much avail in interpreting the taxing statute. None of the parties, i.e., the assesse or the revenue, can plead or rely on equity or hardships.

Thus, nothing can be read in or implied therein, nor there can be any subtraction. Only a fair look at the language used therein is required. Considerations of anomalies or injustice do not play any useful role in construing taxing statutes unless there is some real ambiguity. Fiscal statutes cannot be considered on any presumptions or assumptions and it cannot imply anything which is not expressed nor can any assumed deficiency be supplied.2

2 The Express Mill Nagpur v. Municipal Committee Wardha" AIR 1958 SC 341; CIT v. Karamchand Premchand Ltd, AIR 1960 SC 1175; Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh v. Rai Saheb Sidhnath Mehrotra, AIR 1965 SC 1092; Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal 1, Calcutta v. Central India Industries Ltd., AIR 1972 SC 397; Collector of Estate Duty v. R. Kanakasabai, AIR 1973 SC 1214; Diwan Brothers v. Central Bank of India, Bombay, AIR 1976 SC 1503; State Bank of Travancore v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1986 SC 757; Petron Engineering Construction' Pvt. Ltd.. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, AIR 1989 SC 501; Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Company Ltd., AIR 1992. SC 1782; Kapil Mohan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, AIR 1999 SC 573; Indure Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, (2010) 9 SC 461; and Bansal Wire Industries Ltd. v. State of UP., (2011) 6 SCC 545.