Page 42 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

A196 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Beneficial Notification Circular or Oppressive Notification/Circular
A piquant situation arises in cases where the issue to be decided centres
around retrospective or prospective applicability of a notification. This situation
becomes all the more intriguing when looked at from following two perspective :
Situation 1 – Where Notification is interpreted to fasten onto the as-
sessee a new liability or obligation :
In these situations, Courts’ inclination has fairly been the same that no
interpretation which retrospectively fastens new liability or obligation
can be allowed as such interpretation will patently stand in conflict with
‘Doctrine of Fairness’ as propounded in L’Office Cherifien des Phosphates v.
Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. [(1994) 1 AC 486]. Even the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of India and Ors. v. Indian Tobacco
Association [(2005) 7 SCC 396], acknowledged the importance of this doc-
trine in the interpretation of a law in the following manner :
“The doctrine of fairness also is now considered to be a relevant fac-
tor for construing a statute. In a case of this nature where the effect
of a beneficent statute was sought to be extended keeping in view
the fact that the benefit was already availed of by the agricultural-
ists of tobacco in Guntur, it would be highly unfair if the benefit
granted to them is taken away, although the same was meant to be
extended to them also. For such purposes the statute need not be
given retrospective effect by express words but the intent and object
of the legislature in relation thereto can be culled out from the
background facts.”
While dealing with the situation as mentioned above, Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Govind Das v. Income Tax Officer [(1976) 1 SCC 906], observed that -
“retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to affect, alter
or destroy an existing right or create a new liability or obligation unless that
effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the en-
actment. If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of
either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only.”
Again, in Vatika Township Private Limited [Supra note 15], Hon’ble Supreme Court
while dealing with the said situation observed :
“32. Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose ob-
ligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as
prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a ret-
rospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious
omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation.”
Situation 2 : Where Notification issued can be interpreted to provide
benefits to the assessee retrospectively :
While handling these situations, Courts were found supporting as-
sessee’s claim that such notification should be applied retrospectively. Approach
that Courts’/Tribunals’ have taken so far can be easily understood from the pe-
rusal of following observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Vatika Town-
ship Private Limited [Supra note 15] :
“33. We would also like to point out, for the sake of completeness, that
where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective
construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  42