Page 198 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

116 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38

JAN.’ 18 72673491 16802930 95347963 9710383 991652 1052515 1052515 3096682 AA2401188520778
REFUND REJECTED 991652 1052515 1052515 3096682
REFUND RECEIVED 0 0 0 0
APR.’ 18 59844057 22637875 83700170 10771931 5413726 0 0 5413726 AB24041813723H
REFUND REJECTED 451099 451099
REFUND RECEIVED 4962627 0 0 4962627
JUN.’ 18 49449602 24464276 86299959 8900928 5117024 0 0 5117024 AB2406184251961
REFUND REJECTED 3418338 3418338

REFUND RECEIVED 1698686 0 0 1698686
Total Refund Receivable 49086410 4935669 4172918 58174997
REFUND REJECTED 10937573 4855074 4092323 19884970
REFUND RECEIVED 38128837 80595 80595 38290027

I have verified the above table and checked the same with the workout conduct-
ed in the impugned orders and agree with the submission of the appellants.
Thus, looking above, I find that the adjudicating authority, on his own has trav-
elled beyond the clarification as prescribed in the statute. The adjudicating au-
thority should have relied on the “exact wording” of the statute under considera-
tion.
Lord Diplock in the Duport Steel v. Sirs case (1980) defined the rule :
“Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is
not then for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing
to give effect to it’s plain meaning because they consider the consequences
for doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral.”
This definition says that a judge should not deviate from the literal meaning of
the words even if the outcome is unjust. If they do they are creating their own
version of how the case should turn out and the will of Parliament is contradict-
ed. Similar view has been adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cas-
es and I produce, below, some notable head notes of a few cases.
(A) In the case of Parmeshwaran Subramani, 2009 (242) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.);
Interpretation of statutes - Legislative intention - No scope for court
to undertake exercise to read something into provisions which the
legislature in its wisdom consciously omitted - Intention of legisla-
ture to be gathered from language used where the language is clear
- Enlarging scope of legislation or legislative intention not the duty
of Court when language of provision is plain - Court cannot rewrite
legislation as it has no power to legislate - Courts cannot add words to
a statute or read words into it which are not there - Court cannot correct
or make assumed deficiency when words are dear and unambigu-
ous - Courts to decide what the law is and not what it should be -
Courts to adopt construction which will carry out obvious intention
of legislature, [paras 14, 15]
(B) In the case of Dharamendra Textile Processors, 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3
(S.C.);
Interpretation of statutes - Principles therefore - Court cannot read
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  198