Page 101 - GSTL_20th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 3

2020 ] IN RE : MASTER MINDS 315
As per Oxford Dictionary :
- the subjects comprising a course of study in a school or col-
lege.
As per Cambridge Dictionaries online :
- the subjects studied in a school, college, etc. and what - each
subject includes the school curriculum
4.12 Therefore, the provision ‘education as a part of curriculum....’ can
be understood as ‘imparting knowledge (education) through a systematic syllabus in an
institution/college/school”. The education shall be useful for obtaining a ‘qualifica-
tion’ recognized by law to get exemption under the provisions of Section
66D(l)(ii) of the Act and subsequent to April, 2016 under the exemption notifica-
tion and under GST from 1-7-2017. What is to be seen here is whether, the appli-
cant is an institution, and whether the coaching or training that the applicant im-
parts/prepares the students for obtaining a qualification duly recognized by any
law. It is a settled legal position that the legal provisions are to be read literally
and no words shall be added or deleted from the provision. The applicant cites
few decisions in this regard below :
(a) In the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. UOI - 2012 (27) S.T.R. 193
(S.C.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :
“10. It is a well settled proposition of law that a fiscal legislation
has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is
said in the relevant provision; there is nothing to be read in; nothing
to be implied and there is no room for any intendment. [See : Cape
Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1921] 1 K.B. 64
and Ajmera Housing Corporation &Anr. v. Commissioner of Income Tax,
(2010) 8 SCC 739].
(b) Even a Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which
is plain and unambiguous as held in the case of Trutuf Safety Glass
Industries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 14
(S.C.), relevant portion is extracted below for ready reference :
“16. It is well settled principle in law that the Court cannot read
anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambigu-
ous. A statute is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed
in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent.
17. Words and phrases are symbols that stimulate mental refer-
ences to referents. The object of interpreting a statute is to ascertain
the intention of the Legislature enacting it. [(See Institute of Chartered
Accountants of India v. M/s. Price Waterhouse and Anr. (AIR 1998 SC
74)]. The intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered
from the language used, which means that attention should be paid
to what has been said as also to what has not been said. As a conse-
quence, a construction which requires for its support, addition or
substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as
meaningless has to be avoided. As observed in Crawford v. Spooner
(1846 (6) Moore PC 1), Courts, cannot aid the Legislatures’ defective
phrasing of an Act, we cannot add or mend, and by construction
make up deficiencies which are left there. [(See The State of Gujarat
and Ors. v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel and Anr. (JT 1998 (2) SC 253)]. It
is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act un-
less it is absolutely necessary to do so. [(See Stock v. Frank Jones (Tip-
tan) Ltd. (1978 1 All ER 948 (HL)]. Rules of interpretation do not
permit Courts to do so, unless the provision as it stands is meaning-
less or of doubtful meaning. Courts are not entitled to read words
GST LAW TIMES  20th August 2020  101