Published on: 12 July 2023 at 14:20 IST
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: Santhosh Maize & Industries Ltd. v. State of T.N. (2023)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that if in any statutory rule or statutory notification two expressions are used – one in general words and the other in special terms – then the special terms were not meant to be included in the general expression. It is further held that if a statute contains both a general provision as well as a specific provision, then only the specific provision will prevail over the general provision.
27. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that clarification provided by the Commissioner could not have been made applicable with retrospective effect is, in our considered opinion, without substance. The clarification vide Circular dated 8th October, 1998 was issued in exercise of power conferred by the statute (i.e., Section 28-A of the Act). Whenever a clarification pursuant to an application made by a registered dealer as to the applicable rate of tax is issued under sub-section (1), or the Commissioner on his own clarifies any point concerning the rate of tax under the Act, or the procedure relating to assessment and collection of tax as provided for under the Act is issued under sub-section (2), the object is to make the rate of tax explicit what is otherwise implicit.
The contention as raised, if accepted, would defeat the object of issuing the clarification unless it were construed to have retrospective effect. What the clarification provided by the Commissioner does is to clear the meaning of the two entries which was already implicit but had given rise to a confusion. A clarification of this nature, therefore, is bound to be retrospective.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
