Case Law Details
Apeejay Infra-Logistics Private Ltd. Union of India (Delhi High Court )
We would like to refer to the verdict given by the Supreme Court relating to tax exemptions in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors., (2018) 9 SCC 1, wherein, the Supreme Court examined several precedents cited therein and held that the charging, computation or exemption clause in matters of every tax statute involving dispute as to interpretation, at the threshold stage, have to be interpreted strictly. The dispute in the said case concerned the classification of goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The respondent therein contended that they were eligible for concessional rate of duty on the basis of wider interpretation given to the description of goods specified therein. The revenue however controverted the claim and contended that the concession claim was incorrect and imported product was not covered under the notification. The Supreme Court also had the occasion to examine its earlier decision in the case of Sun Exports Corporation vs. The Collector of Customs Bombay (1997) 6 SCC 564. It was observed that the afore-noted decision rendered in the 1997 case was in conflict with the position of law and was therefore, overruled. The Court then held that:
“exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption Clause or exemption notification”. The Court further observed that in the case of ambiguity in taxing liability statute, the benefit should go to the subject/assessee, but the situation would be different while interpreting tax exemptions, in the following words: “thus we may emphatically reiterate that if in the event of ambiguity in a taxation liability statute, the benefit should go to the subject/ assessee. But, in a situation where the tax exemption has to be interpreted, the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the revenue.” The case law cited by the Petitioner is distinguishable on facts and also has no relevance to the present case. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner had failed to satisfy all the conditions for becoming eligible for the exemptions.
In view of the above, there is no merit in the present petition in respect of the surviving prayers made in the petition, noted hereinabove. Dismissed. The interim order dated 3rd June, 2016, as confirmed vide order dated 21st January 2019, stands vacated.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
