COURT: | Supreme Court |
CORAM: | A.K. Sikri J., J. Chelameswar J., Jagdish Singh Khehar J., R.M. Lodha CJI, Rohinton Fali Nariman J. |
SECTION(S): | 113 |
GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
CATCH WORDS: | search and seizure |
COUNSEL: | |
DATE: | September 15, 2014 (Date of pronouncement) |
DATE: | September 16, 2014 (Date of publication) |
AY: | Block Period |
FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
CITATION: | |
S. 113 Proviso inserted by FA 2002 w.e.f. 01.06.2002 to impose surcharge in search assessments is not clarificatory or retrospective. Suresh Gupta 297 ITR 322 (SC) overruled |
S. 113 Proviso inserted by FA 2002 w.e.f. 01.06.2002 to impose surcharge in search assessments is not clarificatory or retrospective. Suresh Gupta 297 ITR 322 (SC) overruled
There cannot be imposition of any tax without the authority of law. Such a law has to be unambiguous and should prescribe the liability to pay taxes in clear terms. If the concerned provision of the taxing statute is ambiguous and vague and is susceptible to two interpretations, the interpretation which favours the subjects, as against there the revenue, has to be preferred. This very principle is based on the “fairness” doctrine as it lays down that if it is not very clear from the provisions of the Act as to whether the particular tax is to be levied to a particular class of persons or not, the subject should not be fastened with any liability to pay tax
Recent Comments