Published on: 22 July 2023 at 10:00 IST
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: Member, Board of Revenue v. Arthur Paul Benthall (1956)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that according to the principles of statutory interpretation, when an enactment uses two different expressions, they cannot be construed as having the same meaning. It is held that When two words of different import are used in a statute, in two consecutive provisions, it would be difficult to maintain that they are used in the same sense.
8. In support of his contention that ‘distinct matters’ in Section 5 meant only different categories, learned counsel for the respondent relied on certain observations in Ansell v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [(1929) 1 KB 608] . There, the instrument under consideration was a deed of settlement which comprised certain Government securities as also other investments, and under the Stamp Act, 1891, it was chargeable with a single duty ad valorem on the value of all the properties settled.
Section 74, sub-section (1) of the Finance Act, 1910, voluntary dispositions were chargeable with a higher stamp duty as on a conveyance; but Government securities were exempted from the operation of the section. The question that arose for decision was whether a separate duty was payable in respect of Government stocks under the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1891 over and above what was paid under Section 74, sub-Section (1) of the Finance Act, 1910 on account of other investments.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
