Page 207 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 677
Interpretation of Statutes (Contd.)
— Exemption Notifications - When wordings in statute are clear, plain and
unambiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, Court is bound to
give effect to said meaning irrespective of consequences - In applying
rule of plain meaning, interpretation, any hardship or inconvenience
cannot be basis to alter meaning of language employed by Legislature
especially in fiscal statute and penal statute — Inox Wind Ltd. v. Commissioner
of Service Tax, Noida (Tri. - All.) ............................. 123
— Exemption Notifications - While interpreting taxing statute, importance
has to be given to clear expression used therein and no intent can be
examined in case of any unambiguity in wordings of Notification - As
such intention of Legislature has to be gathered from language used in
Notification — Inox Wind Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida (Tri. - All.) ...... 123
— Invocation of larger period of limitation - Intention on part of assessee to
evade payment of tax to be gathered from contents of show cause notice
or any other attendant circumstances - Same to depend on facts and
circumstances of each case and no straight jacket formula prescribed in
this regard - Also, initial burden on revenue to establish or prove that
ingredients prescribed under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of
Finance Act, 1994, present - In absence of which, invoking of extended
period of limitation to be impermissible - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994
— Commr. of Service Tax, Bangalore-I v. Karnataka Udyog Mitra (Kar.) ........... 382
— Invocation of larger period of limitation - Until and unless show cause
notice not alleging wilful misstatement or suppression of fact on part of
assessee, non-payment of tax not to fall within definition of ‘wilful
misstatement’ or ‘suppression of fact’, so as to attract extended period of
limitation as indicated in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of
Finance Act, 1994 - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 — Commr. of Service Tax,
Bangalore-I v. Karnataka Udyog Mitra (Kar.) ........................ 382
— Jurisdiction of AAR - Clearly clauses (a) to (d) and (f) to (g) of Section
97(2) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are in specific terms
whereas clause (e) caters to larger issue of “determination of liability to
pay tax on any goods or services or both” - Not being in specific “pigeon
hole”, this clause would cover all issues effecting GST liability - Article
226 of Constitution of India — Sutherland Mortgage Services Inc. v. Pr. Commr. of
Cus., CGST & C. Ex., Kochi (Ker.) ............................. 40
— Section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Uttar Pradesh
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 contemplates a comprehensive scheme
with a summary procedure for release of goods and conveyances
detained/seized in transit - It is a balancing provision which not only
secures Revenue’s interests but also ensures expeditious release of the
seized goods and vehicles - Procedure herein is distinct from
adjudicatory process of determination of tax liability which has to run
independently - Section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of
Constitution of India — Skipper Limited v. Union of India (All.) ............. 67
Interpretation of statutory provisions, writ jurisdiction invocable - See
under WRIT JURISDICTION ............................ 89
GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  207