Page 48 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

374 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
ple of estoppel would apply, though there are authorities which
opine that a circular could not have altered and restricted the notifica-
tion to the determent of the assessee. Circulars issued under tax en-
actments can tone down the rigour of law, for an authority which
wields power for its own advantage is given right to forego ad-
vantage when required and considered necessary. This power to is-
sue circulars is for just, proper and efficient management of the work
and in public interest. It is a beneficial power for proper administra-
tion of fiscal law, so that undue hardship may not be caused. Circu-
lars are binding on the authorities administering the enactment but
cannot alter the provision of the enactment, etc. to the detriment of
the assessee. Needless to emphasise that a circular should not be ad-
verse and cause prejudice to the assessee. (See : UCO Bank, Calcutta v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal - (1999) 4 SCC 599.
26. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting and Wire
Industries - (2008) 13 SCC 1, it has been held that circulars and instruc-
tions issued by the Board are binding on the authorities under respec-
tive statute, but when this Court or High Court lays down a principle,
it would be appropriate for the Court to direct that the circular
should not be given effect to, for the circulars are not binding on the
Court. In the case at hand, once circular dated 15-4-1994 stands with-
drawn vide circular dated 16-4-2001, the appellant-assessee cannot
claim the benefit of the withdrawn circular.
27. The controversy herein centres round the period from 1st April,
2001 to 31st March, 2002. The period in question is mostly post the
circular dated 16-4-2001. As we find, the appellant-assessee has
pleaded to take benefit of the circular dated 15-4-1994, which stands
withdrawn and was only applicable to the notification dated 7-3-1994.
It was not specifically applicable to the notification dated 21-1-2000.
The fact that the third paragraph of the notification dated 21-1-2000 is
identically worded to the third paragraph of the notification dated
7-3-1994 but that would not by itself justify the applicability of circu-
lar dated 15-4-1994.
28. In this context, we may note another contention that has been
advanced before us. It is based upon the doctrine of contemporanea ex-
position. In our considered opinion, the said doctrine would not be
applicable and cannot be pressed into service. Usage or practice de-
veloped under a statute is indicative of the meaning prescribed to its
words by contemporary opinion. In case of an ancient statute, doc-
trine of contemporanea exposition is applied as an admissible aid to its
construction. The doctrine is based upon the precept that the words
used in a statutory provision must be understood in the same way in
which they are usually understood in ordinary common parlance by
the people in the area and business. (See : G.P. Singh’s Principles of
Statutory Interpretation, 13th Edition-2012 at page 344). It has been
held in Rohitash Kumar and others v. Om Prakash Sharma and others -
(2013) 11 SCC 451 that the said doctrine has to be applied with cau-
tion and the Rule must give way when the language of the statute is
plain and unambiguous. On a careful scrutiny of the language em-
ployed in paragraph 3 of the notification dated 21-1-2000, it is difficult
to hold that the said notification is ambiguous or susceptible to two
views of interpretations. The language being plain and clear, it does
not admit of two different interpretations.
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  168