Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. CIT (Supreme Court) (Surtax)

The Supreme Court had to consider the scope of Notification bearing
No.GSR 307(E) dated 31.03.1983 issued under Section 24AA of the
Surtax Act by which exemption was granted in respect of surtax in favour of foreign companies with whom the Central Government has entered into agreements for association or participation of that Government or any authorized person in the business of prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils. ONGC was notified as the “authorized person”. The question was whether the exemption could be extended to agreements entered into by ONGC with different foreign companies for services or facilities or for supply of ship, aircraft, machinery and plant, as may be, all of which were to be used in connection with the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils. Such agreements did not contemplate a direct association or participation of ONGC in the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils but involved the taking of services and facilities or use of plant or machinery which is connected with the business of prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils. HELD by the Supreme Court:

(i) The law is well settled that a person who claims exemption or concession has to establish that he is entitled to that exemption or concession. A provision providing for an exemption, concession or exception, as the case may be, has to be construed strictly with certain exceptions depending upon the settings on which the provision has been placed in the statute and the object and purpose to be achieved. If exemption is available on complying with certain conditions, the conditions have to be complied with. The mandatory requirements of those conditions must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, though at times, some latitude can be shown, if there is a failure to comply with some requirements which are directory in nature, the non-compliance of which would not affect the essence or substance of the notification granting exemption (Commissioner of Income Tax-III Vs. Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana (2014) 6 SCC 444 & Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and Others (2011) 1 SCC 236 followed);

(ii) Section 24-AA of the Surtax Act was brought into the statute book by Act 16 of 1981 i.e. Finance Act, 1981 with effect from 1.4.1981. The explanatory notes on the provisions of Finance Act [Paragraph 11(4) and 26(1)] clearly goes to show that the legislative intent behind inclusion of Section 24-AA is to encourage foreign companies to enter into participating contracts with the Union Government in the business of oil exploration or production. The further legislative intent was to seek greater participation of foreign companies in the matter of providing services including supply of ships, aircrafts, machinery or plant in connection with business of extraction or production of mineral oils. The aforesaid legislative intent which is two-fold is manifested by the two limbs of sub-section 2 of Section 24AA of the Surtax Act to which the power of exemption was intended to operate i.e. sub-section 2(a) and 2(b) of Section 24AA. If out of the two limbs where the power of exemption was intended to operate, the repository of the power i.e. Central Government, had consciously chosen to grant exemption in one particular field i.e. foreign companies covered by sub-section 2(a) of Section 24-AA, the scope of the grant cannot be enhanced or expanded by a judicial pronouncement which is what the arguments made on behalf of the appellants intend to achieve. Any such interpretation must, therefore, be avoided. Consequently, we see no reason to depart from the basic principles of interpretation, as already noticed, that should govern the present issue. We, accordingly, do not find any merit in any of the appeals under consideration.