Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

Service Tax Exemption Definitions: Interpretation of 'Or' and 'And' Must Reflect Legislative Intent: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has provided crucial guidance on the interpretation of service tax exemption notifications. The Court, in its judgment delivered on 13th October 2023, emphasized the importance of adhering to the legislative intent and clarified the use of conjunctions "or" and "and" in exemption clauses.

The case in question revolved around the interpretation of the definition of "governmental authority" in the context of service tax exemptions. The Court scrutinized the Exemption Notification and the Clarification Notification, which amended the former. The key issue was whether the amended definition should be interpreted to apply to both sub-clauses (i) and (ii) or remain distinct.

The Court ruled that "or" is disjunctive, while "and" is conjunctive, and it must be read as such in statutory interpretation. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta stated, "The conjunction 'or' used in clause 2(s) clearly divides sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (ii) as independent categories."

Further emphasizing the importance of legislative intent, the Court highlighted that "Parliament does not indulge in legislation merely to state what it is unnecessary to state or to do what is already validly done."

The judgment clarified that when a provision is clear and unambiguous, as in this case, there is no room for alternative interpretations. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with the assessee to demonstrate that their case falls within the parameters of the exemption clause.

Supreme  Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the impugned judgments and orders. The ruling serves as a significant reference point for the interpretation of service tax exemption notifications.

This judgment underscores the principle that statutory interpretation must adhere to the plain and natural meaning of the words used and must reflect the legislative intent, especially when there is no ambiguity in the provision.

Date of Decision: 13 October 2023

COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, PATNA    vs M/S SHAPOORJI PALLONJI

Latest Legal News