Page 225 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] INOX WIND LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, NOIDA 127
words of the statute and interpret them accordingly. While interpreting the tax-
ing statute, the importance has to be given to the clear expression used therein
and no intent can be examined in case of any unambiguity in the wordings of the
Notification. As such intention of the Legislature has to be gathered from the
language used in Notification, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Dayal Singh v. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 1140.
8. In fact the entire case law on the subject stands dealt with by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in their latest decision in the case of Commissioner of Cus-
toms (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.). It
was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it is only when, while interpreting
the statutory law, any doubt arises as to the meaning to be assigned to a word or
a phrase or a clause used in the enactment and such word, phrase, or clause is
not specifically defined, the construction of the statute can be according to the
intention of the Legislature. When the wordings in statute are clear, plain and
unambiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, Court is bound to give ef-
fect to the said meaning irrespective of the consequences. In applying rule of
plain meaning, interpretation, any hardship or inconvenience cannot be the basis
to alter the meaning of the language employed by the Legislature especially in
fiscal statute and penal statute.
While applying the ratio of the above decision to the wording of the No-
tification, we find that the said conditions in the amending Notification No.
46/2011-ST are clear and unambiguous. It is also seen that prior to the said
amendment the Notification No. 18/2002-S.T. simplicitor exempted the taxable
services from so much of Service Tax which was equivalent to the R & D Cess.
However with effect from 19-9-2011, the specific conditions were introduced in
the said exemption Notification. As per the said conditions R & D Cess was re-
quired to be paid before payment of service tax only then the service tax exemp-
tion equivalent to R & D Cess would be available to the importer. In fact such
amendment in the earlier Notification No. 18/2002-S.T. vide which the present
two conditions were specifically introduced, reflects upon the legislative intent
and makes it clear that the service tax is not merely exempted to the extent of
R & D Cess payable but said exemption would be available only if R & D Cess is
paid before the payment of the service tax. The expression used in the conditions
was introduced as paid and not payable, thus leading to the inevitable conclu-
sion that R & D Cess is required to be paid before the payment of service tax.
9. The appellants have also contended that the payment of R & D Cess
is only a procedural and administrative condition, which should be diluted and
condoned. However, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the above
stands of the appellant. If such conditions have to be taken as procedural condi-
tions, the entire legislative exercise of introduction of the said two conditions
becomes otiose and a futile exercise on the part of the Legislative. If the said two
conditions are considered to be procedural, nothing remains in the Notification
so as to extend the benefit of exemption to the service tax to the tune of R & D
Cess paid by the importer. It is well settled law that any interpretation which
renders the Notification as futile piece of Legislation has to be avoided. Inasmuch
as the condition of payment of R & D Cess is substantive condition of the Notifi-
cation and is not relatable to any procedural aspect, we are of the view that non-
fulfillment of the same rendered the appellant disentitled to the benefit of the
Notification.
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  289