 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 61 3.71. Substitution of another word for the word "occasion" not possible.- We may state that during the course of our discussion, we considered the question whether it would be expedient to replace the word 'occasion' by another less ambiguous and more precise word in order to avoid any future difficulty. But we ultimately came to the conclusion that it would not be advisable to amend section 5 by substituting another word for 'occasion', because we apprehend that the use of any new word may, in turn, create problems of its own. In our view, the purpose which we have in mind would be served effectively if we add two propositions) to section 5, which would make it clear that the broader interpretation placed on the word 'occasion' in Khosla's case was not within the contemplation of Parliament when it enacted section 5. 1. See para. 3.68, supra. 3.72. One of us, Mr. S.P. Sen Varma has, in a separate note, suggested the insertion of elaborate provisions to emphasise that the word 'occasion' used in section 5 must receive the narrower interpretation. His suggestions are made in a positive form and they seek to make it clear that the first purchase after import and the last sale before export are not exempted from state taxation under section 5. In fact, when we were discussing section 5, Mr. Sen Varma had urged that the Commission should adopt the course which he has ultimately adopted in his separate note. We fully discussed his proposals, but came to the conclusion that the purpose which we all had in mind would be more effectively served by adding two propositions framed in a negative form so as to remove the anomaly resulting from the wider construction placed on the word 'occasion' in Khosla's case. We also felt that any attempt to achieve this result by making elaborate provisions in a positive form may conceivably raise unanticipated problems in future, and that is a possibility which we are anxious to avoid. Besides, we were inclined to take the view that the elaborate provisions which our colleague has set out in his separate note may, with respect, appropriately form part of discussion of the point in a judgment but may be out of place in a statutory provision of the nature under consideration. That is why we regret we were not able to accept our colleague's suggestions, though we gave them the respectful consideration which they deserved. Before we conclude, we must, however, emphasise the fact that the Commission is unanimously of the view that the word 'occasion' used in section 5 must receive a narrow construction and that the first purchase after import and the last sale before export should not be entitled to exemption from taxation by the States concerned.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back