Friday, March 21, 2014

Contd. (SERIAL No.2)

Preceding Blog @

 Cross Refer >

>Statutory interpretation by Francis Bennion, 2nd Edn. section 288, with the heading ‘Presumption that updating construction to be given’ states one of the rules thus (page 617):
It is presumed that Parliament intends the court to apply to an ongoing Act a construction that continuously updates its wording to allow for changes since the Act was initially framed (an updating construction). While it remains law, it is to be treated as always speaking. This means that in its application on any date, the language of the Act, though necessarily embedded in its own time, is nevertheless to be construed in accordance with the need to treat it as current law.
In the comments that follow it is pointed out that an ongoing Act is taken to be always speaking. It is also, further, stated thus (pp. 618-19):
In construing an ongoing Act, the interpreter is to presume that Parliament intended the Act to be applied at any future time in such a way as to give effect to the true original intention. Accordingly the interpreter is to make allowances for any relevant changes that have occurred, since the Act’s passing, in law, social conditions, technology, the meaning of words, and other matters.

@Section 194 IA     And   Section 194 IA Supplement 

Taxation of Cooperative Societies Under Direct & Indirect Tax Provisions on TaxGuru!

< The purpose of law is to prevent brooding sense of injustice. It is not the words of the law but the spirit and eternal sense of it that makes the law meaningful.>

(Source; SC judgment in Girnar Traders vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Dt. 11 January, 2011 -Author: S Kumar J)

Rider (Not Unrelated)

"Calling all stakeholders ..."- The very basic premise in calling the addressees as 'stakeholders'  is 'prima facie' misconceived, besides being potentially misleading.

As for suggestions, in going ahead with the proposed restructuring of the website, if at all to be purposeful, one can offhand, think of offering  the following:

> Such an exercise, being overdue, must be done and completed on a war footing.

 > provide the people, to be precise the taxpaying community, the advising professionals, et al, an opportunity to express their views fairly and frankly, so that the revamped website serves as a useful platform for mutual interaction with the Revenue. More so, should the subject matter be of such a nature as entailing/inuring for the 'common good'- not case (individual) -centric.

>any feedback given, depending on its prima facie sincerity behind, merits, etc. ,must firstly be promptly acknowledged, and displayed ;

>that must be followed on by a well considered response – not one-sided- wherever necessary with an explanation in brief  to support or substantiate the response from the Revenue by a special officer designated for the purpose.

In short, the scheme so devised and put into practice must have the laudable objective of finding ways and means as to how best, any otherwise easily avoidable,  unwarranted or in fructuous so called ‘battle of wits’ , often leading eventually to court litigation, could be effectively checked/controlled.

Speedy remedial action /resolution of any mindless controversy  must be the written rule of the game.

< May be contd.

No comments:

Post a Comment