Interpretation & Application of Exemption Notifications in Indian Taxation

ANALYZING THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF EXEMPTION NOTIFICATIONS IN INDIAN TAXATION LAW 

Abstract: 

Statutory exemption announcements are very important in determining tax administration and policy. Their implementation and interpretation, nevertheless, may be difficult and complicated, and they can have a big impact on social welfare, economic development, and tax collection. This research project intends to analyse how exemption notifications in tax legislation are interpreted, to identify the variables that affect this interpretation, and to assess how this interpretation affects tax administration and policy.

An extensive case study analysis, comparative analysis, and legal analysis are all part of the research’s mixed-methods methodology. The study will offer recommendations for policymakers, tax authorities, and other stakeholders on how to interpret and apply these exemptions in order to achieve their intended policy objectives. It will also offer insights into best practices for designing and administering exemption notifications in taxation statutes. 

Introduction

Interpretation of exemption notifications under Indian tax legislation has always been at the forefront of debates. A tax law’s exemption notification clause exempts certain products, services, or transactions from taxation or lowers the amount of tax due.

Determining the extent of the exemption is one of the important considerations in reading judicial pronouncements regarding the exemptions. Based on the languageemployed in the notification, the context in which it is used, and the objective of the exemption, the scope of the exemption may be constrained or widened. If an exemption notification mentions “agricultural products,” for instance, this phrase might be read either narrowly to apply to just crops produced on farms or generally to refer to any items associated with agriculture, such as fertilizers, machinery, and equipment.

Identifying the restrictions or criteria imposed on the exemption is a further crucial consideration. Several Notifications of exemptions include requirements or restrictions that must be satisfied in order for the exemption to be valid. These restrictions may pertain to the nature of the delivered products or services, the amount of the transaction, or the place of the transaction.

Before requesting an exemption, it is crucial to thoroughly analyze the notification and any associated guidelines to make sure that all requirements are satisfied.

The research project is divided into three primary sections. Firstly, it clarifies the meaning and general understanding of tax exemption notifications. Secondly, it sheds a light on the history of interpretation of exemption notifications followed by analyzing the settled legal position and subsequent effects of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India. Finally, the project concludes by giving recommendations to interpret such notifications to achieve the objective sought to be achieved by such exemption notifications and taxation statutes.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• What are the variables employed in tax law’s interpretation of exemption notifications and their implication on the policies and administration?
• How have various courts and tax authorities interpreted tax exemption notifications through various judicial pronouncements.
• How has the tax exemption notifications’ interpretation developed over years and what is the present position of law.
• What should be the approach towards interpretation of these tax exemption notifications.
• What are the challenges and restrictions posed by the tax law’s interpretation of exemption notices, and how may they be overcome to create a more fair and effective tax system?

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1. To look at how courts and tax authorities interpret tax laws’ exemption announcements and gauge how this affects how these exemptions are used in reality.
2. To highlight the challenges involved in interpreting exemption announcements in tax laws and to provide solutions in order to achieve more equal and effective tax policy.
3. To examine the various methods used to evaluate exemption notices in tax laws across various jurisdictions and identify the variables employed.
4. To give suggestions on how to interpret and use exemption announcements in taxation legislation in order to accomplish their intended policy goals for policymakers, tax authorities, and other stakeholders.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research paper adopts a secondary mode of analytical research by examining the existing literature coupled with precedents on the subject and a comparative analysis with different jurisdictions.

Primer to Exemption Notification in Taxation Statutes

1. WHAT ARE EXEMPTION NOTIFICATIONS IN TAX

A particular clause in the tax laws that permits certain kinds of income or transactions to be excluded from taxation is referred to as an exemption notice in the context of taxes. The government issues these notices, which outline the requirements for requesting the exemption.

For instance, if a non-profit organization satisfies specific legal requirements, it may not be subject to taxation on its revenue in certain countries. Similar to this, in certain nations, specific investments or transactions may be excused from paying taxes in order to promote economic development or growth in particular industries.

2. WHY IS IT MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHER EXEMPTION NOTIFICATIONS

Tax exemption notices do play a significant role in promoting particular economic activity, stimulating investment, and advancing social reasons in the framework of taxes. Governments often utilize them to encourage certain behavior or to assist particular companies or sectors. For instance, tax exemption notices for non-profits are essential for promoting generosity and aiding social causes. Similar to this, tax breaks for R&D activities may foster innovation and spur economic expansion.

Notifications of tax exemptions may also have a large financial impact on both individuals and the government. They may have an influence on tax revenues and the nation’s overall fiscal health. As a result, it’s critical to plan and implement exemption notifications to make sure they’re efficient, fair, and in line with overarching policy objectives.

3. HOW HAVE THEY BEEN INTERPRETED IN A GENERAL SENSE

Exemption announcements are interpreted in a variety of ways, which may be complicated. Tax authorities may read the notification’s terms narrowly or widely, which might result in disagreements between taxpayers and the government over the exemption’s parameters.

In certain situations, the exemption announcement may need to be interpreted, and advice on its scope and applicability may be requested from courts and other conflict resolution processes. Other elements, such as the particular aims and policy goals of the tax system and the economic and social environment in which they are administered, may also have an impact on how exemption announcements are to be interpreted.

Overall, the way in which exemption notices are interpreted in tax law and policy is crucial and may have a big impact on both taxpayers and governments. This is because the burden of the tax exempted for the assessee has to be borne by other taxpayers in the country. 

1. HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION OF EXEMPTION NOTIFICATION

The courts in India have interpreted the exemption notifications applying various standards including strict, purposive and liberal. It has analyzed exemption notifications on the basis of the doctrine of substantial compliance. Additionally, the courts have a wavering position on the burden of proof on the assesseee to claim the relief as well as the principle of equity to interpret exemption notifications.

The Strict vs Liberal vs Plain Interpretation Debate

The conflicting methods of strict and purposeful construction are to blame for the differences in legal interpretation. According to the strict construction method, the law can only be applied in its plain sense without taking its implications into account.[1] A more liberal reading of the law is possible using the purposive construction method. Even though there are several cases that clearly confirm the use of strict construction,[2] this has led courts to struggle with choosing which approach to take when interpreting exemption provisions.[3] The interpretative norm has changed as a result of this pendulum-like swing in court opinion, applying strict construction to the exemption eligibility requirements while simultaneously giving a more permissive meaning to the elements necessary to claim exemption.[4]

Additionally, the Supreme Court has made contradictory pronouncements, making it challenging to establish a clear legal stance. While some judges have ruled that exemption is a stand-alone procedure in which the exemption’s intent can be disregarded,[5] others have ruled that the statute’s plain language must be followed, with the concept of stringent or liberal interpretation only applying in ambiguous situations.[6] These assertions highlight how drastically the two methods differ from one another.

The Doctrine of Substantial Compliance

Another point of contention in interpreting exemption clauses is the substantive versus procedural distinction, which refers to the weight attributed to adjunct laws over the exemption provision directly. This topic was raised in the case of “Commissioner of Central Excise v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal”[7]when taxpayers claimed that if procedural requirements had been largely met, they should be generously construed. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hari Chand supported both strategies, affirming the concept of rigorous construction but also admitting the possibility that certain parts would be required and others advisory.[8] The Court acknowledged that in some circumstances, considerable compliance may be enough to qualify for an exemption, but the legal situation was still in flux since the strict construction criterion was still being contrasted against the doctrine of intended us for interpreting exemption provisions.[9] “Despite the Supreme Court ruled against the assesseee in the Hari Chand case, it did not overturn prior rulings that acknowledged and implemented the doctrines of intended use and substantial compliance, enabling them to continue being relied on as predecessors for asserting exemption based solely on substantial compliance.”

The onus of proof

Another consideration is who is responsible for proving the exemption claim. In accordance with civil laws, which also apply to tax laws, the burden of evidence rests with the party asserting the claim.[10] According to the English perspective, all tax exemptions put an additional cost on other members of society, hence in circumstances of ambiguity, the taxing act should not be interpreted in the assesseee’s favour.[11] The Supreme Court further concurs that anybody claiming an exemption must unambiguously demonstrate that they are covered by the clause; otherwise, the State should profit from it.[12] This idea was reaffirmed, noting that it is the taxpayer’s responsibility to establish that their case qualifies for the exemption clause.[13] Opposing rulings, however, maintain that a construction that benefits the assesseee should be used when there are two potential readings of the exemption clause.[14]

Principle of Equity

In the “CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.” case,[15] the Supreme Court established the notion of equity in tax statutes. Prior to this, it was generally accepted that equitable factors had no place in the enforcement of budgetary enactments and activities.[16] By adopting the idea of fairness as a weighing element to favour the assessee against the Revenue,[17] the Vatika Township decision altered this perception. The tax liabilities of assessee and the meaning of the exemption clauses have both been determined using this ruling.[18] As a result, it is necessary to review the legal basis used to interpret exemption clauses.

2. SETTLING THE WATERS OF INTERPRETATION

Due to the ineffective status of the law, the Supreme Court assigned cases involving the interpretation of tax exemptions to a bigger bench. This culminated in the judgement in “Commissioner of Customs (Imports) v. Dilip Kumar & Ors.”[19] by a five-judge panel, which noted that the earlier rulings in favour of the taxpayer in cases of uncertainty in the interpretation of exemption notices had caused confusion and led to an unacceptable state of law. This was notably true for laws governing indirect taxes, when exclusions were announced by the executive branch instead of being included in the formal legislation as a kind of delegated legislation.[20]

These considerations make it more challenging to understand exemption clauses. The Supreme Court was entrusted with evaluating a customs exemption notification that provided an exception for “prawn feed.” “Based on a recent ruling that concluded that animal feed also encompassed animal feed supplements, the taxpayer contended that this exemption ought to be extended to prawn feed supplements.”[21] The Supreme Court subsequently referred the matter to a higher court, which led to the Dilip Kumar judgement, but it also cast doubt on the interpretation standard from the earlier ruling and acknowledged the poor status of the law. They went farther and addressed the tension between stringent and purposeful interpretation requirements of tax legislation. The Supreme Court ruled that a written constitution cannot contain an inferred right to levy taxes; instead, such a right must be expressly granted and must precisely adhere to the Constitution’s provisions.[22] Therefore, it is best to construe any vagueness in a tax legislation in the subject’s or assessee’s favour.[23] The court stressed that while identifying the tax subject or the person required to pay taxes, no implied conceptions may be used. One must only take into consideration the terms that are specifically mentioned in the legislation; there is no room for intention or assumption regarding the tax.[24] The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India made it clear that although ambiguous charge clauses must be interpreted in favour of the assessee, exemption provisions must be interpreted strictly.[25]

In reaching its decision, the Court took three crucial factors into account: (a) the recognition of horizontal equity, (b) the adherence of strict interpretation to the plain meaning rule, and (c) the interpretation in favour of exclusion in the face of ambiguity.[26] The Court acknowledged that expanding the scope of an exemption might have a negative impact on other taxpayers. Therefore, in the event of an exemption announcement, the benefits of inconsistencies must be interpreted in favour of the Revenue/State, even while the advantage of ambiguity in a charge section should be interpreted completely in favour of the assessee.[27]

Difference between constructing an exemption notification and a taxation statute

The ruling distinguishes between reading an exemption notification as opposed to interpreting a taxation legislation. It reaffirms that, when two interpretations are feasible, the one that is most favourable to the taxpayer should be chosen in the event of a statute’s charging provisions, while the contrary is true for the construction of an exemption notification. Article 265 of the Constitution of India[28] requires that a stringent rule of interpretation be applied when interpreting a taxation act. Without a legal mandate, the state cannot impose taxes on its people, and the legislature is not allowed to enlarge the definition of taxation.[29] Any uncertainty in the text of an exemption notification should be interpreted against the taxpayer since exemptions frequently raise the burden on unexempted taxpayers.[30]

The “plain meaning rule” applies to tax laws, which states that when a statute’s text is unequivocal and obvious, courts must read it as such without using interpretation. The court also acknowledges that strict interpretation should only be applied in cases where it is unclear what the legislation is meant to express since it is subservient to the plain meaning criterion.[31] The court affirms that contextual or purposive interpretation cannot be used to taxation legislation and that rigorous interpretation means applying the “literal or plain meaning” standard.

It is paradoxical to believe that strict interpretation entails using a statute’s exact language in all situations and only employing it when there is uncertainty. When evaluating tax legislation and exemptions, it’s crucial to take the meaning and application of rigorous interpretation into account. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, strict interpretation refers to reading the wording of a legislation in accordance with its language and spirit in order to dispel any ambiguities regarding its applicability while without extending the law by implications or equitable principles.[32] Although literal interpretation can produce nonsensical results and be contrary to the meaning of the law, strict interpretation does not necessarily imply this. The court has emphasised that strict and literal interpretations are commonly employed interchangeably, although this is not necessarily acceptable in all instances.[33] Taxing laws should be flexible in how they are applied so that taxpayers can receive assistance through notifications of exemptions. In contrast to a charging provision, an exemption notice has a separate rule of construction that calls for a strict reading to establish if a subject qualifies for the exemption and a liberal interpretation to determine whether the subject is covered by the notification.[34]

Implications of the decision on other taxable incidents

The decision will probably give tax administration additional authority to make sure that tax exemptions are only granted when the taxpayer satisfies the stringent qualifying requirements. If the judgement is given a retrospective effect, the taxing authority may request backdated taxes from previous instances that are currently being assessed or adjudicated. To qualify for a tax exemption, the assessee must demonstrate their eligibility to the revenue department.[35]

The Income Tax Act, 1961(India).

This Dilip Kumar case might have an impact on other tax laws including the Income Tax Act and GST. But given that the two statutes’ frameworks differ, it’s possible that the ruling’s effects on the Income Tax Act would be different. The favourable provisions of the Income-Tax Act are revised annually by the Finance Act, and the court normally interprets them broadly. Circulars published by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) according to section 119 of the Income-tax Act may also be impacted by the decision. This ruling may be used as a guideline by the tax authority to reject taxpayer claims for benefits of exemptions granted in accordance with the order or instructions included in the circular.[36] The judgement may also have an impact on the retrospectivity concept, which was maintained in the case of Vatika Township case.[37]

Goods & Services Tax

As the Dilip Kumar case establishes a new standard for evaluating the application of exemption notices, it will have significant consequences for GST. The court’s judgement nullifies earlier rulings and recommends a more stringent approach to enforcing the requirements for exemption notice. Assessees will need to be more cautious when claiming exemption advantages, and problems with exemption and characterization for rate purposes are likely to lead to more legal disputes unless clear administrative advice is available.

3. THE AFTERMATH OF DILIP KUMAR

Despite the increased cost on taxpayers, the Dilip Kumar ruling was an important legal clarification that raised hopes for resolving the dispute over how to interpret tax legislation. It was determined that the assessee bears the burden of proof for proving exemption eligibility whereas the Revenue bears the burden of proof for demonstrating the tax charge. The most important part of the ruling was the determination that all judgements that shared the Sun Export case’s point of view were overruled, which allowed people to move forward without being constrained by earlier precedents.

But the most recent Government of Kerala v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent[38] ruling brought in a fresh perspective. The Supreme Court noted earlier rulings that supported strict interpretation of exemption provisions but also emphasized another line of precedent that stated that even in tax statutes, an exemption provision should be interpreted liberally if it is intended to provide incentives for promoting economic growth or has some other advantageous purpose.[39]

The Supreme Court determined in Mother Superior casethat the prior decision did not address the distinction between broad exemption provisions and those that have a special benefit purpose after carefully examining the specifics of the legal issue in Dilip Kumar’s case. The court cautioned against a harsh and restricted construction of the legislation and encouraged to take the provision’s goal into account in order to understand how to interpret similar provisions.[40] Hence, the Mother Superior ruling gives the legislation created by Dilip Kumar a new dimension and emphasizes the necessity for a more complex examination of exemption clauses.

Furthermore, Dilip Kumar case did not look into the intent behind Article 14 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination against taxpayers. The ruling in Union of India v. N.S. Rathnam & Sons[41] emphasises the importance of ensuring equality among taxpayers and the fact that the Revenue is not allowed to treat individuals differently based on the wording of the exemption notification.[42] The conditions of the exemption notifications are binding on the taxpayer and cannot be contested if Dilip Kumar is regarded as an unbreakable principle.[43] This could go against Article 14, which the Executive has a sacred duty to uphold.[44]

Regarding the application of exemption clauses in tax disputes, Dilip Kumar has unfavourable effects for the taxpayer. The burden of asking the taxpayer to prove their application for exemption may be excessive given the unfair power imbalance in favour of the Revenue. The judgement in Union of India v. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.[45] serves as an ideal instance of the effects that adopting Dilip Kumar’s ratio has on the taxpayer.

The question in Amazon concerned whether e-reading devices like the Amazon Kindle qualified for preferential tax treatment under an exemption for “electrical machines with translation or dictionary function.”[46] According to the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), the Kindle qualifies for the exception because it gives readers access to word definitions from dictionaries as they read books. The Delhi High Court overturned the AAR’s ruling, finding that the dictionary feature was not the primary purpose of the Kindle, which was made primarily for reading electronic books.[47] According to the High Court’s interpretation of the exemption, “electrical machines with translation or dictionary function” have to have such capabilities as their principal and pertinent purposes.[48] According to this view, taxpayers had an onerous burden to prove that the exemption had a legitimate purpose. The burden of proving the exemption claim for taxpayers has increased since the appeal against the ruling in the Amazon case was rejected.[49] 

Recommendations

Exemption notifications found in taxation statutes should be written in a clear and concise way, using language that is unambiguous and terminology that is consistent. This will lessen ambiguity and misunderstanding on how to interpret these notifications. Further, the interpretation of tax exemption notices be purposeful, which means that the legislators’ intent should be taken into consideration. Taxation exemption involves various stakeholders like taxpayers, companies, industry experts etc, it is pertinent to have a dialogue with them, taking their interests into consideration.

The effects of exemption notifications in taxation legislation should be monitored in order to determine and avoid any adverse repercussions. Overall, these suggestions may contribute to more effective and fair tax policy and administration by enhancing the clarity, uniformity, and efficacy of the interpretation of exemption notices in taxation legislation.

Conclusion

Interpretation of exemption notice in taxation legislation is one of the most important aspects of taxation. It deals with identification of parameters of exemptions and the criteria for applying for them. Due to the many technicalities, such as legalese, statutory restrictions, and case law, involved, the interpretation of exemption announcements may be ambiguous. It requires thorough consideration and comprehension of the guiding principles and regulations of tax law. Judicial rulings are important in interpreting exemption notices because they provide direction to taxpayers and tax authorities. The approach to be employed for the interpretation of the tax exemption notification has also changed over years through various judicial pronouncements. The case of Dilip Kumar has been a changing point for the exemption notifications’ interpretation; however, the legal system still suffers with various challenges.

[1] A.V. Fernandez v State of Kerala, (1957) AIR 657; Martand Dairy & Farm v UOI, (1975) SCR 265; Giridhar G. Yadalam v Commissioner of Wealth Tax, (2015) 17 SCC 664.

[2] Star Industries v Commissioner of Customs(Import), AIR 2016 SC (SUPP) 926; Commissioner of C. Ex v Rukmini Pakkwell Traders, (2004) 93 ECC540.

[3] Commissioner of Customs v Reliance Petroleum Ltd., 2008 (227) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.); Coastal Paper Ltd. v Commissioner of C. Ex, (2015) 3 KER LT 50.

[4] Commissioner of Customs(Imports), Mumbai v Tullow India Operations Ltd., (2005) 8 SCJ 364.

[5] State of Gujarat v Essar Oil Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 522.

[6] Commissioner of C. Ex v Hari Chand Shri Gopal, (2011) 3 KCCR 192.

[7] Supra note 6.

[8] Id.

[9] Id. at para 33.

[10] Uniworth Textiles Ltd v CCE, AIRONLINE 2013 SC 88.

[11] Littman v Barron (HM Inspector of Taxes), (1953) 33 TC 373.

[12] Novopan India Ltd. v CCE & Customs, MANU/SC/1216/ 1994.

[13] Meridian Industries Ltd v CCE, 2015 (325) E.L.T. 417 (S.C.)

[14] Cemento Corp Ltd v CCE, (2002) 8 SCC 139.

[15] CIT v Vatika Township Pvt Ltd, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8750 OF 2014.

[16] Tarun Jain, ‘Fiscal Incentives and Exemptions: Reflections on the New Interpretation Standard’ (2018) 5(2) NLUJ Law Review 1-27.

[17] Vatika Township, n 15.

[18] Shanti Fragrances v UOI, (2018) AIRONLINE 2017 SC 638; “Adani Power Ltd v UOI, 2015 (330) ELT”; UOI v Margadarshi Chit Funds Pvt Ltd, (2018) 2 SCC 97.

[19] CC (Imports) v Dilip Kumar, (2018) 5 ABR 802.

[20] WPIL Ltd v CCE, AIR 2005 SCC 1321.

[21] Sun Exports Corp, Bombay v CC, (1997) AIR SCW 2621.

[22] Dilip Kumar, n 19.

[23] Dilip Kumar, n 19.

[24] Dilip Kumar, n 19.

[25] Dilip Kumar, n 19 at para 55.

[26] Dilip Kumar, n 19 at para 49.

[27] Dilip Kumar, n 19 at para 53.

[28] India Const. art. 265.

[29] Mangalore Chemicals &Fertilisers Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 21; CCE v Parle Exports (P) Ltd, (1989) 1 SCC 345.

[30] Commissioner of Inland Revenue v James Forest (1890) 15 AC 334;Liberty Oil Millls (P) Ltd, Bombay v Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (1995) 1 SCC 451.

[31] Mangalore Chemicals, n 29.

[32] Mangalore Chemicals, n 29.

[33] Hari Chand, n 7.

[34] Hari Chand, n 7.

[35] The Income Tax Act, 1961(India).

[36] Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd v CIT, 8 [2000] 342 ITR 808;CCE, Bolpur v Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, [2008] 231 ELT 22.

[37] Vatika Township, n 15.

[38] Government of Kerala v Mother Superior Adoration Convent, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 151.

[39] Id, CST v Industrial Coal Enterprises, (1999) 2 SCC 607; State of Jharkhand v Tata Cummins Ltd, (2006) 4 SCC 57, Pondicherry State Coop Consumer Federation Ltd. v Union Territory of Pondicherry, (2008) 1 SCC 206.

[40] Id.

[41] UOI v NS Rauthuknam & Sukons, AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 1273.

[42] Id.

[43] Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, 2012 SCC OnLine SC 792.

[44] Id.

[45] UOI v Amwkazoon Sellorer Serve vices, (2019) 365 ELT 477.

[46] Id.

[47] Id.

[48] Id.

[49] SLP(C) No. 29/2019.

****

By Aditya Singh and Deepanhu Verma, National Law University, Jodhpur