LexGURSAHAI SAIGAL versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 893 to file their written statements and then appropriate issues should be framed and the suits tried and disposed of in the light of the findings on those Issues in accordance with law. Under the unusual circumstances in which the litigation has thus secu- red a further lease of life, we dire1Jt that the costs incurred so far should be borne by the parties. Appeal allowed. Oases remitted GURSAHAI SAIGAL v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNJAB (J. L. KAPUR, A.'_K. SARKAR and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) Income Tax-Advance payment-Oonstruction of enact- meut-Rule-Penaltg in addition to liability-Indian Income· tax Act, 1922 (II of 1922), a.ISA, Sub-sa.(2),(3),(6),(8),(9). By Sub-s.(8) of s.ISA. "where on making the regular assesment, the Income-tax Officer finds that no payment of the tax has been made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section, interest calculated in the manner laid down in sub-section ( 6) shall be added to the tax as determined on the basis of the regular assessment". Sub. section (6l of s.18A provided, "where in any year an assessee has paid tax under .. sub-section(3) on the basis of his own estimate, and the tax so paid is Jess than eighty percent or the tax determined on the basis of regular assessment ... simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the first day of January in the financial year in which the tax was paid up to the date of the said regular assessment shall be payable by the assessee upon the amount by which the tax so paid falls short of the said eighty per cent." The assessee should have under sub-s.(3) of s.18A made an estimate 0f his income and paid tax according to it but he did neither. He was thereupon charged with interest under sub-s.(8) of s.18A. He contended that interest could 1961 Amir Singh •• Ram Singh 11Jlll! 1962 Guf'sohai Saigal •• Oommissioa1r oj J1;c•m1-Tax PunjtJ6 894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) not be so charged because under sub-s.(8) interest could be charged only in the manner laid down in sub-s. 16) that is from January l, of a year in which ta" was paid and on th~ shortfall betwem eighty per cent of the tax payable on regular assessment and the amount actually paid, neither of which could be done in his case as he had not paid any tax at all. Hold, the rule that in a taxing statute one has to look merely at what is clearly said and that in such a statute there is no room for any intendment applies only to a taxing provision and does not apply to a provision not· creating a charge for the tax but laying down the machinery for its calculation or i:rocedure for its collection. The provisions in a taxing statute dcaJing with machinery for assessment have to be construed by the ordinary rules of construction, that is to say, in accordance with the clear intention of the legislature which is to make a charge levied effective. Cammisaiontr of Income-tax v. Mahaliram Ramjidaa, A.I.R. 1940 P.C. 124, Inaian Unitea Milla Ltd. v. Com- mi11ioner of Exctss Profit• Tax, [1955] I S.C.R, 810, Whitney v. Commisiioners of Inland Revenue, (1925) 10 T. C. 88 and All•n v. Trehwrn•, (1938) 22 T. C. 15, referred to. Sub-s. (8) of s. IBA is a provision which lays down the machinery for the assessment of interest. Its plain affect is to impose a liability to pay interest and then it provides that in calculating the interest the machinery laid down in sub·•· (6) should be applied. Sub-s. (6) should therefore be r.ad in a manner which makes it workable and prevents ·the clear intention of the legislature from being defeated. That sub- section should, where it is to be applied because of sub-s. 18), therefore, be read, as "from the !st day of January in the financial year in which the tax ought to h~ve been paid" and in such a case the shortfall contemplated m sub-s. (6) would be the the entire eighty per cent. The penalty under sub-s. (9) of s. 18A is in addition to the liability under sub·ss (6) and (8). Sub-s. (9] does not arise in the construction of sub-ss. (6) and (8). CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDIOTION: Civil Appeals Noa. 10 to 12 of 1962. Appeals from the judgment and order dated February 5, 1960 of the Punjab High Court in I. T. R. No. 20 of 195~. . J 3 S.C.R. SUPREME OURT REPORTS S95 A. V. Viswanath Sastri and R:Gopalakrishnan for the Appellant. 1962 - Gursah•i SGigal y, Gopal Singh and R. N. Sachthey for the Res· pondent.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.