LexANANDJI HARIDAS.& CO. PVT. LTD versus ENGINEERING MAZDOOR SANGH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.:) 42 ANA.NDJI HARIDAS.& CO. PV't. LTD V, ENGINEERING MAZDOOR SANGH & ANR. February 13, 1975 (A. ALAGIRISWAMI AND R. S. SARKAR.IA, JJ.J Bonus Act, 1965-.s. 'l(e)......Scope of-Speech of a Minister in Pa•liame111 tJr iLegislature--lf could be u.ied in consmdng a clear and unambiguouJ' provis/011. Secti0n 7 of the Bonus Act provides as to how the dircc:t tax payable by an em- ployer is to be calculated for the purpose of computing the available surplus. <Clause (e) of s. 7 enacts that no ao::ount shall be taken of any 'rebate' or 'relief' or deductio11 in the payment of any direct tax allowed unde~ any law for the time 'being in force relating to direct !axes or under the relevant annual F:innnce Act .for the development of anv industry, In the case of an industrial company, which is not a company in which public '1l'e substantially interested, the Finance Act. 1966 fixed the rate of income-lax at 55% on so. much of the total income as did not ex.:eed Rs. ten lak.lis, on the IJalance, if any, of the total income 60% and 65 % in the case of n,iy other ·company. In a dispute between its employees and the appellant, which is an1 industrial ·company the latter contended that for the purpose of computing the available surplus it Wi!S entitled to deduct direct tax at 65% and not 55% which was only a concessimlal levy amounting to a 'relief' for the purpose of development. ·The Tribunal accepted the contention of the appellant. The High Court allowed the 1 espondent's writ petition under Art. 227 of :he Constitution holding that the com- ·pany being an industrial company could not claim deduction at a rate higher than 55 % in cakulating the available surplus. On appeal it was contended that the 10 % concession in the rate was given to industrial companies with a view to promote development of industry and as such must be deem•d to be a 'relief or 'rebate' in !he payment of direct ta)[ contem- plated bv s. 7(e\ of th<> Bnnir; Act Rrli<>ncr fo• thi• ha~ h-en nlaced on the speech of the Finance Minister on the budget for the year 1966-67. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (I) The company being an industrial company with total income not . ,;:xceeding rupees ten lakhs the rate of tax under paragraph l(A)(2) 0) of the Finance Act, 196~ applicable to it was 55% and not 65% of the total income. [544H-545A] (2) The 'rebate or relief' in the payment of any direct tax, in ord.er to fall within the purview of s. 7(e) of Bonus Act. must be a rebate or relief "allowed under any law for the time being in force relating to direct taxes or under the relevant Finance Act. for the development of any ind11stry" which is one of the condi'ions to be satisfied. Jn the present case it did not satisfy this c:ondition. The Finance Act, 1966 did not say that this difference of 10% in the rate of tax applicable to an industrial .~ompany and any other company is to be deemed to be a rebate or relief for the development of industry. No• has it been shown that this diffe'ence in the rates i;; allowed as a rebate or relief under any other .extant Jaw relating to direct taxes. [545F-H] . 3 (a) It was not permissible to use the speech of the Finance Minister to -construe the clear language of the statute. [545C-DJ (b) As a general principle of interpretation, where the words of a statute are plain, rirecise and unambiguous the intention of the Legislature has to be g~thered B 0 D E F G from the language of the statute itself and no external evidence such as ParlialllCll· H tary debates. Reoorts of the Committees of the Legislature or even the statement made bv the Minister on the introduction of a measure or by the framers of the Act is admi<Sible to construe t~o.e words. It is only whece a statute is not exhau- stive or where its language is ambiguous, uncertain, clouded or susceptible of more ·] B c F G H . ~:-;Xl\iDJl HARlDAS L ENGG. MAZDOOR si\."IGH (Sarf:.lli'ia, J.) S 4 3 .1 han one meaning or .shades of meaning that external evidence as to the evils. if any, which the statute was intended to remedy, or of the circumstances which led to the passing of the statute may be looked into for the purpose of ascertain- ing the object which the Legislature had in view in using the words in question. F545I>-FJ CIVU. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2053 of 1971. Appeal by special leave from the Judgment & Order dated the 8th July, 1971 of the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No. 1346/6
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.