Tax laws. Interpretation. There is no equity about tax. No presumption as to tax. Nothing to be read in, nothing to be implied except the actual language used. Karnataka High Court.

M/s. Kluber Lubrication (India) Pvt Ltd vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. TAET 10/2014. Decided on 16 December 2020.

Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354692/1/TAET10-14-16-12-2020.pdf

Relevant paragraphs. 18. In the backdrop of aforesaid relevant statutory provisions referred to supra, we may advert to well settled principles of construction of taxing statutes. It is well established rule of interpretation of taxing statutes in words of Lord Simonds that subject is not to be taxed without clear words for that purpose and that every Act of Parliament must be read according to natural construction of its words. The aforesaid principle was referred to with approval by Supreme Court in ‘MEMBER SECRETARY, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE BOARD FOR PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF WATER POLLUTION VS. ANDHRA PRADESH RAYONS LTD.’, AIR 1989 SC 611, ‘SARASWATI SUGAR MILLS VS. HARYANA STATE BOARD’, AIR 1992 SC 224, ‘INDIA CINE AGENCIES VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS’, (2008) 17 SCC 385, ‘MAMTA SURGICAL COTTON INDUSTRIES, RAJASTHAN VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER    (ANTI    EVASION),  BHILWARA, RAJASTHAN’, (2014) 4 SCC 87. It is equally  well  settled legal position that in a taxing Act, one has to look at merely what is clearly said. There is no rule for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing has to be read in, nothing is to be implied, one can only look fairly at the language   used.   [See:   ‘UNION   OF  INDIA   VS. IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.’, (2011) 4 SCC 635 AND ‘BANSAL WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH’, (2011)  6 SCC 545, ‘CIT  VS. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS’, 2014 (6) SCC 444] [See: Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Justice G.P.Singh, 14th Edition, Page 879].

Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.