LexMEMBER-SECRETARY, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE BOARD FOR PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF WATER POLLUTION versus ANDHRA PRADESH RAYONS LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
MEMBER-SECRETARY, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE
B
BOARD FOR PREVENTION AND CONTROL. OF
WATER POLLUTION
v.
ANDHRA PRADESH RAYONS LTD. & ORS.
SEPTEMBER 30, 1988
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, M.H. KANIA AND
S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.]
~Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) cess Act. 1977: Secc
C
tion 3 and Schedule 1-Cess-Levy and collection of-Industry
manufacturing Rayon Grade pulp-Neither chemical, textile nor paper
industry ..
'Statutory Interpretation: Taxing Statute-Interpretation of-No
room for any intendment-No equity about tax-No presumption as to
D
tax-Whether any industry falls within realm of taxation-To be judged
by predominant purpose and process-Not by any ancillary or inciden-
tal process carried on. by the industry.
E
F
G
H
The respondent, Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd., manufacturing
Rayon Grade Pulp, a base material for the manufacture of synthetics or
man-made fabrics, was assessed by the petitioner under the provisions
of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 which
provided for levy and coilection of Water cess from the specified
industries enumerated in Schedule I of the Act. On appeal, the Appel-
late Committee confirmed the order of assessment on the ground that
the respondent was manufacturing Rayon Grade Pnlp which came
under the category of Textile industry.
The respondent flied a writ in the High Court challenging the levy
. inter alia on the ground that it.was not one of the. industries mentioned
in the Schedule. The High, Court upheld this contention.
·
Before this Court, it was sought to be canvessed by the petitioner
that Rayon Grade Pulp was covered either by Item No. 7 of the
Schedule, which was chemical industry, or item No. IO which was tex-
tile industry, oi item No. 11 which was paper industry.
Dismissing the petition, it was,
380
• I •
"
_..,.
A.P,WATERPOLLUTIONv. A.P. RA"\'ONSLTD.
381
HELD: (1) The Act being fiscal in nature must be strictly
construed. The question as to what is covered ··must be found out
from the language according to its natural meaning, fairly and
squarely read. [385F; 386B]
(2) In a taxing Act one bas to look merely at what is clearly said.
There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax,
there is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to
be implied. [385HJ
(3) Whether a particular industry is an Industry covered in
Schedule I has to be judged normally by what that industry produces
mainly, its predominant purpose and process, and not by any ancillary
or incidental process carried on by it. {386D I
( 4) Chemical process would be involved to a certain extent, more
or less in all industries; but an industry would be known as a chemical
industry if it carries out predominantly chemical activities and is
involved in chemical endeavours. [386E]
(5) Taxing
consideration
may stem Crom
administrative
experience and other factors of life and not artistic viSualisation or
neat logic and so the literal, though pedestrian, interpretation must
prevail. [386C]
(6) One of the well recognised canons of construction is that the
legislature speaks its mind by use of correct expression and unless there
is any ambiguity in the language of the provision the Court should
accept literal construction if it does not lead to an absurdity. [387E]
A
B
c
D.
E
(7) There is no absurdity in the literal meaning. Broadly and
F
literally it can be said that the Rayon Grade Pµlp is neither chemical
industry nor textile industry nor paper industry. l387G; 386Hl
In Re Micklethwait., [1885] ll EX 452, 456; Tenant v. Smith,
[1892] AC 150; St. Aubyn v. AG., [1951] 2 All E.R. 473; Cape Brandy
Syndicate v. /RC., [1921] 1 KB 64 at 71; Gursahai Saigal v. C.I.T.
G
Punjab, [1963] 3 SCR 893; C.l.T. Madras v. V. MR. P. Firm,' Muar,
[1965] 1 SCR 815; Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat v. Kamila/
Trikamlal, [1977] l SCR 9; IRCv. Duke of Westminster, (1936] AC 1 at
24; AV Fernandez v. The State of Kera/a, (1957] SCR 837; Martand
Dairy & Farm v. Union of India, 11975] Supp.- SCR 265; Lt. Col.
Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India, (1983] lSCR 393, referred to.
H
382
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
Mis. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. Mavoor v. The
A
Appellate Committee for Water Cess, Trivandrum, A.I.R. 1983 Kerala
110, overruled.
B
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
•'
(C) No. 8566 of 1988.
, From the Judgment and Order dExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.