Karnataka High Court
The Secretary Central Board Of Direct ... vs B K Sinha on 12 September, 2008
Bench: Manjula Chellur, A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH coua? OF KARNATAKA AT BANaAz.oRs;f- [.%_i Jf
amen 'ms THE 12*" my c>:= SEPTEMBER, 2093. jg. «
"ms HOWBLE MRs.Jusr1cE W&¥Sl5££_LA <:}§§LLuR %
PRESENT
8:
THE HON'B£..E MR. JUSTICE At.£\.!.\/EI\.¥Uu'G'OE_ViV3'.«c'~s.L__Vg€i. G0-VQQA
BETWEEN:
1
wan' APPEAL Naszseggés %
WRIT APPflLVNO.6 lgw
TH£%$Ecs;ET;a;zy = _
CENTRALVBOARS O'F«,DiREC'%' TAXES
FGREIGNV Tfix)€- ..DIVI:'3.1C}'.'i,' %
DEP.ARTMENT'QfF._REVENUE,
Noam Bi.,GC!<, ' . J _
<:Er~:mAz. SEf;F>:ET:?sRIAT,
" §%:EwA DELHMA10 om.
2+ :?%%THE%%§4>.S%sz«sTA~T coamzsszomea 09 znzcomamx
7 '3AN;;ALcRe~1.
'h"1APD% 3(1_); INCOME TAX OFFICE,
R-3'uILDIVrs1G, QUEENS ROAD,
. . . APPELLANTS
. BY,SRI:V"R".B. KRISHNA, ADV. FOR M/S. MURTHY &
%<uMA"R)
%%*aWK SINHA
"NO.B-15, xuoaemum comnv,
:2 mocx, KORAMANGALA,
T M v sesz-:A<:HA£_A, ADV.)
BANGALORE«34 .
R§$AP:o:w£'é§T A
(BY sax: G. SARANGAN, SR.ADV. FORWM/S._|<:?.R
THIS wan APPEAL IS FILED Tumbgk s:c1?zc>m
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT__.ACT'-..PF€.'-\YIi%!VG{TQ_SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED THE PETITION
no.23sos-505/2001 DATED 25/o}*;F2%c93.
BETWEEN:
1 umow :::FIs~3mA A
REP. av Sf&'C¥§ETARYéTQ VGO'g_/ER¥\!ME'iV2T
IN THE;.£"J'E'PT¥".1'-92!?'RE\(ENttg;--_
MINSTRY OfiF]i'?INA?%C,E'~~.'T_' '.
NORTH.
NEW DEi;F~£17v_--.1101.00-1_"'~.___ 1 A
2 sENzoVRAAaEsEARcH OEFECIER
FT & TR~..DI'JISION:,_ '
ogsrr. o:=' REVENUE",
Mmsmv or mlAN::
":~som*:-3 BLOCK,
A :j - 94524:} D.Ei«...H'1'v 3.10% 001
3 2 'D.EPUTY."CIC}TMT¥V¥ISSI0NER OF IMCOME TAX
A -*ZI4IRCl.E(1j',A INCOME TAX OFFICES,
U'I"a§IT'Y&BLDG ANNEXE, 6TH FLOOR,
MIS5§N ROAQBANGALORE 560 02?.
A APPE!..LANTS
VTT""A.._T%'ER.ASMANI
Ts/0 SWETARANYAM
» MAJOR, 4-E, PALMTREE PLACE,
No.23, PALM smve ROAD,
VICTORIA mvow",
BANGALORE 550 047.
(BY sax: K s RAMABHADRAN , AD\}..)_ " T
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS Fzgep u5:%Dea'sEcfric2%b&s'4%vos k
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT'-._ACf'_T PRAYING "$0 551"
ASIDE "me once». PAssEDV..sezN'*%'~Ta-5 wR:rr» PETITION
No.2721s/1999 DATED' 25::'o7.%2op3e.s«
These appea#s coming!' fiE§a3.'V{ee.e:;§ng, this day,
VENUGOPALA 3:; de¥'i'VéE.*ed..th._e i'oi§0wing:
(«.1
The a;5;:>VelVi'}:.*.:jtsf' tee respondents in Writ
petitfion w'os,%235csgs'é.s,'2..§a1 and 3215/1999. The V respoméruts heréinflévere the writ petfitioners. The learned a common order dated 25.07.03 (asserteds;;.g2eo3; 264 mi 5) has ailewed both the writ ' gsetitidhs. ».f:Ag§r£eved thereby, these appeals have been
2. The case of the petitioner in we Nes.23605- ecie./{)1 in brief is that, he is a technician; he had entered into an agreement with M/sltaieb (Japan) Ltd. for suppiy K. of service in the light of his experience in the inter'nVati.ohav£.. market and his service was rendered from Indie'. aopiied to the appellants for approtrai of it enable him to claim deduction, tii=.e'er'_ SGRRA of the Income Tax Act, iiieisfizhareinarteial to as the 'Act'). The application's"§o'§;$vve.},3jacted onthe ground that, no visits to abroad is envisaged in the agreemeht'i««,,.Assaiiinglt~he"<dAeci.siao.n,§iairit petition was filed.
2.3,. _'petit'ior': 5 was contested by the aopellants,"a--¥:if'yfivlin'g_ th,e»--sté;tement of objections, inter alia _ contehdirsg that, intention of the Legislature is to the that, benefit under Section SGRRA of the Act Aw-3_uii:i_the:""e,traVi.{aVi§le only to the technicians who work _ abreast, in 'order to compensate them for the extra living W H " c"osts__abrGad.
3. The case of the petitioner in W.P. No.2?215/99 brief is that, he is working in the field of management and marketing, in the petroleum sector, l\as expertise, /.'.
knowiedge and experience in the said fieid appointed as a consultant by a foreign comoAa'i:y:"}§§}s,Gil:" v. Tanking GMEH of Hamburg, ':t:o'-It professional, mahageriai, Vter;hnical._"'*service;;.:in pane petroleum sector. An agreei?e;'entV era's. '::en:te.red into between him and the fora period of three years from April, fixing the remuneratiori for service rendered to V"§ie"'was staying in India and wavs"'senVd:i%:h'g tohtheyv foreign company at l-£ambure";.i it an application before the competent ai1th_or§ty,*--fo'r grant of approval under Section xflforwthve service rendered to the foreign it::oeep.any'v..ot:ts'i'de"ilndia. Considering the application, the con§petent_'.av'etVhority granted approval by an Order dated in..___'2_,?6.1999,vR'sinv terms of Section 80RRA of the Act, by 'iilf1*i;§:oVs"ir~._g a condition that, "the approval for exemption is proportionatly to the stay and work abroad, with total amount received by applicant". The said order was questioned in the writ petition and relief was sought. 2,.' 3.3.. The appellants who were resposzlfentslwi"tiietl.$_"t statement of objections to the writ-petltlon,*'_.'Asu_o§o:r:lno shelter, said order dated 2.6.99 and seek¥ng writ petition.
4. Learned Sin§llé«.3uc.l§e§V.:«tel{i'ng_up ttlesaid writ petitions together for passed the common order." eside' conditional approval and has issisedso;.sgli:?é:tiel{fto: 'the i;'e'r:tral Government to approve" unconeitionally and further directed l§oVkorovioet&leooo~:ioe in terms of Section some of the Act, to blotstne. writ. petitioners. :..%.4\'le'*~..h_ave heard Sri. R.B. Krishna and Sri. MAI. S'esfie_c«héle';_'v_v..leerrted Advocates for the appellants and .Sri. v'--.VSa'ré:ngan, leerléed Senior Counsel for the H K respomderits.
5.1. Sr¥. R.B. Krishna, learned counsel for the lflappellants, contendeé as fellows» g/'
(ii) That the iearned Single Judge has misdiréctgd himseif in ignoring the iegisiative;~i-n.ts'nt:4fgfé brought out in a meme fiied__,:"b:efbEfe:'~ bringing out the fact is the basis fer ded_gctioh*-- nnider S.-éc;tib'n"8Oii'RA'V >' of the Act;
That Legisifibre vi's;:;Vet;ificaI!y vbiroizided for si%_:'u4étinns.\iiiheere"thé' bsfiefitbf deduction would 2' be--:j_$\;*_ai¥é'biej'f£iir-services 'rendered from India in 35(0) of the Act and there _ "wés{idA:.ijs:ith._;§j'rn=s;ision under Section BORRA of m Act';
That't«h'é"dVeduction under Sec.8{)RRA of the Act " be avaiiabie to a technician employed by ~ Zijaiindian concern and such a situation would
(iv) arise oniy if the technician was physicaily out of India;
That the reiiance piaced on the decisiens in the case of 'CBDT Vs. ADI'¥'H'1'A V.BIRLA' reported in 1370 ITR 13? (SC), in tgxe case of 'C5. /2, MATHUR vs. cam' reported in and in the case of 'MAHENDRA RA.i_A'_:ft!SV.:»A.jC:Ii~i"?_:"
$ECRE"¥'ARY, GovEa~M:$i§T mo I_i*lDI;lg'{t"--..i'épc>r:_tés:|V: T 7 in 257' ITR 569, are no£V--1;'pi;:iicab_§a'«i tli;atT,Vi % the learned Single""3£i'dge ha's._ooifimii:f:ed an error'of fact~.§nd_r'Vloirgl;in_»"'l'al.lowin§ tile writ petitions and lo' tl«itéV"I*t,=;l~§:st-,f; 5.2. Sri.ii*l,f_tfi..:..';'._V Sé;s.i1__écha-£'a,i_' 'learned ..counsel, contended %as_foi3:ovi€:e;;'_~V._ » V
(i) That" $ihgie Judge has failed to osoreciotg At.hé't.,l7for granting approval under _l"Sevc.8"GRR.A.....ovf the Act to an assesses, the ..vA_v4'ass.:é§see should be rendering service to the companies outside India by staying abrioad;
That the deduction under Sec.86RRA of the Act would be available to a technician employed by a foreign company and even if tfwas paid in A"
(iii) India, such a situation would arise technician was physicaliy outsideVIh'dia; % That a mistake has been ignosing, the fact that, _l.e_gislaét*u_r'e'w-- has.v*'V~lsnec£fic'aii.y provided deduction Secgaifiafi) oifitne Act for services 'ra»nder'ed'_fronj.»iln--::iia and that, such Darsons calonotf 7au'§*i,,i_ iiblenefit under ti:.eV.Ac;t; 1: it
(iv) --:int_ention of the Legislature in bersefit was to provide certain "tax mherits »to""_those persons who stay abroad to connnaensurate with the expenses incurred 'them during" their stay abroad;
._ persons are staying in India, that extra exnenses which they would have incurred, if they had stayed abroad, is fully saved, resulting in obtaining double benefit of the provision, as well as not incurring expenditure outside India;
K _ Counsel w.rit'l:;§et'itioners, by taking us ,.ii.lleg-eljiitygfian vvazllovri'ng""t'he writ petitions and no interference i_'s"t:el'ied::_'for.»v'"Ar:t;;3rding to the learned Senior Counsei, the ll'-..4.4_"with the'_A'1~Legislative intent and also In tune with the ":li'nterr$i7etation given to Sec.8ORRA of the Act by various it Learned Senior counsel by referring to the ifdeclsions cited by him before the ieerned Single Judge, 10
(vi) That the decisions relied upon by the Singie Judge to pass the impugned;'_:'order'«.:ere::__"~ _ not applicable to the faets "
of the case and that the learned Singie Jud'ge_.i$ £iict i::
the provision of the'V'i5§*C;tl.
5.3. Per"een1tra,"--.Sri,"i'S."$eVrengan, learned Senior throughthVe"rer:»ore":3;gf leetlifions and the impugned order passed by'tVhe'Z.l§eerned«.Single Judge, contended that, the ieernedlafsinivgle.Eudgelhas not committed any error or orderllpassédlf-.V.b':y the learned Single Judge is in conformity % 3.1 made submission in support of the findings recotded ~ the impugned order.
6. Learned Single Judge, inV"th_e has held that, in these days of txdclnnoiogicai ._dgt}eiof3:ment, one can render service §°*"A:9"°"t5id9 India in terms of Sec.§QRPtAtheii'r§iicfi"vV._.onVfy*~iprovides for deduction for the assessee outside servltgewiioutside India, need not be otitside as contended by the Revenue' and "'co:n't:e'ntion is accepted, the very object of the""h_enefé"ciei- deduction is defeated and no 'Vnarroni'uintesrpretation"is"'oossible. According to the learned iévnyjigarrow interpretation would result in the countryloslnifoireign exchange in addition to losing the ~.,_A_v__§e-.rvices." short, according to the iearned Sing¥e Zfudge, .A._to_'"earn""deduction in terms of Sec.80RRA, outside stay or work outside India is not necessary.
k /..
12
7. Having heard the learned counsel;""a*nTd*'.'._§l%t;_;f~.< perusing the record, the point that consideration is:-
"censidering the scopetcend purport of of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Singie 3udge is justified in ho.l.¢*lng".V_"~~t_o...eern deduction in terms of Sec.8GRRA of_'l:.ne_ Aci:,. _pil1y"si_ceai'* stay or physical work outside'_I%1diefi's_. unnece.esa_by?'?"
the Act deals with various types of"deductie.ne.A'-- cases on hand, we are conce.-med §vi!tV%j"'."thel' 'deduction under Sec.80RRA.
5.'V."'IAncid'enta'iiy,"'the prloliriisions contained under Sec.80(O), '2'8Gxi?.._.- ofthe Act, have to be considered as wail. s'.:.7- Sec.80(O) of the Act prov§des for deeuction in of Royalties etc. from certain foreign enterprises. ' K'---..'j;t__aiprovides that "any consideration for the use outside » ulfindia of any patent, invention, design, trade mark etc.", deduction is permitted by a slab system. \/..
13 3.2. Sec.80R of the Act provides rorrideaooétiion "
respect of remuneration received from cerEain_"foreiAg.ni.' sources in the case of professors, teachers etcV.57IAt. L. that "any remuneration recei\ée'dVV:._"i:y_ anV"e.ssessee:f§outside India from any University~..or o't'i'1N§f.Ié§V.};e.tioneivvinsvtitutions established outside Indie .-esisefcietion or body estabiished outsi'dej¥.~ndie_, for~'an'yr:se'iv.i.ceArendered during his stay as a Professor, teacneri University, institution or body':'V','-.Ais for such remuneration on siab_basis;".. it it ' of the Act provides for deduction in resp.e¢t;' of' §§'i'of%ess¥onai income from foreign sources in certain'. cases. The provision refers to an author, artist etc., deduction is permissible in respect *--«ofAAa-nyiiincome derived by the assessee in exercise of his "*4:orofession from a Government of a foreign State, a 2*.
14 certificate is required to be furnishee in the prescrihged form.
9. Sec.80RRA of the Ac:;i' wéiticeh' iés»._th'e":'r:ieiieri'és1i.:
provision, required to be taken into.'Vcon_si'derat§o.nV fend interpreted for decision in th_ese:__eppeeis;«i_proyi?des for deduction in respect of '*r.ernuI'i_er-;a>tio'r'r~fr£eiyed for services rendered outsi;de}i;n1dia."--.The'éaid sectiontaireads as foiiows: "where of an individual _vy'hoiV'is5;_a of mfiia inc__£_gdes any rer:;t_:"neration"'-s.rgceiuedwbv him i in foreign' _gu__r_u_'§;~ncv fronj."'o'n_5;.':en§giov,er {being a foreign ;emQ%oyer-.o_r'a'n Irsdien concern) for any service V-':s.j"':r,e_n--der@i b H'h'i"tnVou ide India, there shall, in
--acc;ord_er.n:"ce_ 'with and subject to the provisions settiion, be aiiowed, in computing the A *-«.._tot_ei' éneome of the individuai, a deduction from suvch. remuneration of an areount equai to seventy-five per cent of such remuneration, as "is brought into India by, or on behalf of, the assessee in convertibie foreign exchange within a period of six moths from the end of the psevious year or (within such further \ /' fl 15 period as the competent authority may aiiow in this behalf.) " i (underlining is By:'us)~.. ti "
10. From a reading of thev"pro:y}'s~ion,=it'*is"
that, deduction is permissibie_i'n._resoe-ct of i{io'i,s;id'i1ai who is a citizen of India for the,_t:r'er:nun_erati'o'n.received by him in foreign currency Zfrotn a foreign employer rendered by him outsideVitoiimcifintention between the parties 7is, ._ -the words "any service rendered tbygthrimt The assessees contend V that,"i%; is unnecessary that, the service shouio be rendered hyzfetntailiiiineoatside India to avail the benefit, whereas, '-"re$}enf£:_ev__ eotitends that, to have the benefit of _deou"ction--._"and'er the Section, it is mandatory that, the should be rendered by the assessee by remaining .out_side"India and not otherwise.
13.. Though a iiberai interpretation has to be given to a provision, the interpretation hasvqto be as per the /.5
-xé 16 wordings of the Section. If the wordings unambiguous then the benefits, which under the Section, cannot be confefred. exl;.§e"i1ding*:"'orl".
mislnterpreting the words in the Section; In btlg.'§:.5'~cas§"'.;:"'§~.;g,'§R are concerned with the wording.<;::'"..eany.seryice j'::en'de'fed' by him outside India".
12. Sri_.jCa'.f;S'erari:;A_gA;VVe'i:;1','irei-iedl»l"_onv:'tnjevv'Vdecision of the i-ion'ble Sup-renne of 'Aditya V. Birle (sufira)- .. '-jifionlsiideredjtherein was "whether any reneu.ner4et§on"e§jesV by the assessee in Foreign Currency fromi;.isVVVen'lpioy*ef, being a foreign employer for sewice_re_ndered' Aby«h.imvoutside Inc¥ia?". The said decision this ;a'n__aethor'int'y*for the propositien that, the deduction of the Act, need not be limited to V --fsalar§' zeeernved by a technician for service rendered iiiemuneration' wiil cover fees paid to a consultant j.4,ii0r't!echnician. In the said case, there was no dispute with i ':'--4:Vre'g"ard to the sum having been received in Foreign "Currency for the service rendered outside India. A'.
3.7 12.1. The reiiance placed on the decision of (LS. Mathur (supra) is of no assistar:ce_to1"i;ii e':i_ifi~.*sl;ant"'l case, since in the said decision, it assessee may claim the deductions either uhder'.i.SAe'c.'"80'(i§")l V or Section SORRA of the Act.
12.2. Reiianoe oiacooiiocn docilsigiiin the case of Mahendra Raj iwz 'for decision makifig h3*'9l.?lV; that, the benefits of be available to non-
saiery earners aisog' V' A utiie decVfisi.o:i}s___s*;ated supra, the point which has A*._3riSé£'l_V :1e\iii«.%fo:r"~-consideration, namely, "for the services re%i.d'ered'I'hdia" has not been decided. 12;3_{1Sri.G. Sarahgan, relied upon the decision in of "commissioner OF INCOME TAX vs. TARA V" -.._"vl;liG$NCIES" reported in (2007) 292 rm 444 sc wherein, it _:r:as been held that the intention of Legislature has to be gathered from the language used\Bin the Statute which /7 18 means that, attention should be paid to said as also to what has not been said and bounden duty and obligation of thfeiéourtv Statute as it is.
12.4. Sri.G. Saravngan also 'reigledgizponiltvheklecision in the case of "BAJAJ Tempo :--l1i§*lllji'i*:§E}."°di.S:i:V'~'€;iC§MMI$SIONER or INCOME rgxégewgmaoM;9e;~2%;ee:9e rm 139, to contend granting incentives for deizelopment should be construed a provision for promoting econorjnicgg growth'vVh'as."'to;. be interpreted liberally, the I-fit'restrivation*on..it toowhae to be construed to advance the i'o.b§e;ti'vefcf.vthe~orovision and not to frustrate it. We will _ consider theeealspects later.
V' A. Learned counsel for the appellants cited the rtmlglog in the case of "crr vs. TARA AGENCY" reported in T *"fl(2'{}O6) 282 ITR 526, wherein the facts of the case were that, the petitioner who was a cmartered accountant, /.
19 provided professional service to foreign ciients,_4.oa-tsid_e India. He entered into an agreement company at Japan to provide acc.o'u'n~t:a[jncy*»:: 'and " it management services, in terms ofQwh_ic!1;1v for the ser§:ii_cesa_i rendered, he was to receive an -aggregate feea;vV"iie..ciaVinned benefit of Section BORRA of thetvtfiscti, w_hich's*!uaa:rejectad by the CBDT on the o.r.,tfhAe\d\iWnditions to be satisfied for aaiaieagina&hamsiiigiaaottsection some. of the Act is rendered outside India _the'V'agreement, it did not provided'for4--phys§Vca!I[jVp_?es.ehca abroad for work and hence, the case do%eis" not.quaA|'ify'"f:er deduction under Sec.80RRA. fucjttheir-ea:re'p.resenta'ti'on was submitted, which was aiso xsaiid action of CBDT was questioned in the writ ,_;aetitio.nr'§--.V.ifonsidering the contentions, it was heid as 'foiiowsng However, we are of the opinion that the it oetitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 8ORRA_of the Act because he has not rendered any service outside India for which he received the remuneration i question. /Jr 20 Under Ciause 3 of the agreement, we have quoted herein above), thez"ev.A4_:i;;_ . requirement to be physicatbfbtpresieht India and there is no speciti'cV petitioner that he aest.iV#physisaéa:y stareeanttttt outside India when he reiédeered the It was further hei§'tbat:«"V""'V_ A bare peiaga: of Section the Act cteariy indicates that a::"pe'rser;.n'asjjvvt'o' iihysitzaity present outside India wniia fendertngs in'..§£iestio n. Tithe ..--:'3ec.80RRA was enacted was hetd to 'be as-foiiowst-A"v_ parposeo ' enacting Section SORRA as .VVm«ve_n'tioned.__in the memorandum explaining the Li*eiii%eg$r'o¥;é'is.ioneeor the Finance am, 19:25 (see [1975] A 98v_.iT'RQ:($t.) 182),. was that Indian technicians V wine. work for a short period outside India A' 'iatitsring a financial year for a foreign enterprise are tiabie to pay Indian tax, if they remain resident in India for tax purposes in that year, on the whole of the remuneration received by them from the foreign ernpi yer, without any /_'» 21 allowance In respect of expenditure lncurred~-7b;3{.'._'__i' . them out cf such remuneretien for rr.'e_et£.ng_" ti hlgher iivlng costs in fereign _¢eu»ntries["§~i'eece.;"
to avoid this hardship seL;tion..o'n8v9ltR}'=....'wast}-.___VA*=::;_s enacted."
It was further heid that:
Sec.30RRA would._,,gie.attrai;t;e€f"--n':n:l'§Iwhen a person claiming dedtictionv hastreceivedgieiehnnereltlen in foreign currency. C<3_ni:;reril.i:l'lf.:ll.e forelgeri nn situation can be received an-nl;~§§9essee"erhe:iliswniorking only in India. An'nnal§eis'iof*---éieetien SDRRA reveals that in order to bV%'4..;3fi'§€5t[:evd. the deeuction or benefit of tax .---.4reduo;:'£i:o:1_tAV'ai:Ve_the""ra~te*enumerated in the section, the V7..eseessee'i.wi1e»ie'a citizen of India, must have received the suri'ii =A .u'('i)% I' 'lay way of salary or remuneration; it 'll"{il) In Foreign Convertible Currency; and '>'("l£i) From any employer (being a fereign employer or an Indian concern) for any service rendered by him outside India. \/.:
22
ijnless the said three ingredients are satisfied,»-the assessee is not entitled to ciaim benefit of dedigiiitiemli _ provided under Section SORRA of theftct.
15. Learned Single Judge"7i1a~sv_A"not"v_..eonsi.de--ral:'"' Sec.80R_RA in correct perspectiv--e,;"'~.,B,y only .ho.1djivn§'~--;th'at,'Vino narrow interpretation is ipossihiie, th'e"i'mpugned*-Aorder has been passed, iintiendment and the correct Learned Single Judge _inrholding that physical stay outside inrzlia for of deduction in terms ef Sec.80P.RA isennecessarxr. The exercise undertaken or I-thine,V'i"nterpret'atior3 lgjiliiien to the Section by the learned "E3.in'g,_le'3u.dg_,e, dirt-.§.i5r opinion, is against the piain reading of the Ap.rovisionl'ianVd is contrary to ail ruies of construction, to T7-'«4___'r'eaAd words into the statute, which the legisiature in its has deliberately not incorporated. The
---..",':V:c.p'nistruction pieced by the learned Single Judge is against "the legisiative intendment. i~ion'bie Supreme Court in the case of DASI JAGAMQADHAM VS. JAMMULU RAMULU ANS l/z u"'.Vuhambig£ous and produces an intelligible result that, it is 23 OTHERS, reported in AIR 2901 SC 2699 with regar_6"te"p:«th'e' Principles of interpretation has heid as follews:.._i'-- it A
"13. We have censideredmtieéAsu.bi'ni'ssi--ohs"
made by the parties. The se_ttle_dep1rih'ci_piAes- oft}-.... '' interpretation are that the Coefiolrnust preceeé _ on the assumption that t.§§...le§isVlature.. it make a mistake and ApthVa't.._it..__'didi "whHatV_.:§it intended to do. Coi;_rt m,u.st;l_pas far as pessihie, _adopt a v._v§:hi<";i"i I wiil carry out the intention iefltheu legisieture. Undouii::.teiil_h;Vif tlhereis eV:'d'efe:§::tVV'or an omission in the lhllefiisletu re, the Court woulcs pm __'to correct or make up the o'eficiency_. coufd not add words jtoax statute 'or"read {words into it which are not Aespec'ial*§*" when the literal reading .§l'0VdVt§Cr3$fi"'3.'fl inteliigible result. The Court _"-".__cerniot,n___ai§=fhe legislature's defective phrasing v_.a~n'_u}Act, or add and mend, and, by censitruction, make up deficiencies which are " = =.t_her"'e."
when we literaliy read Section 80RRA, it is clear, applicable oniy to an assessee we brings in foreign /7'-
24 convertible currency by way of rernunerationj"fromf foreign employer, by rendering service outs_¥.de» it it
15. sri. cs. Sarangan thiatv e.
construction has to be placedlonjthe words *'forv_an'yWse'r¥)ice V rendereci outside India", .. Learneti.."cofinsel sdbinitted that, when two interpretation's:A'e*re" be made, the interpretation wh_ich__'is fé'\rour;abl:e«.V:'tn_'_tvhererssessee should be adopted. :__ blush appears to be sotindbztiit two views are possiblezto be .the.:_ir;tei'bretation of the expression "for any servicevvrenderedfiwutside India". In our opinion V "for eriy'Vservice"'rendered outside India" admits oniy one The interpretation which the learned co':inegi.'st;§geste'd"'to the said words in the section, will not i be fuli'----and: 'co'rnoiete and will render the meaning of the it "'::v"v4."'t«r'ords__in the section inconsistent with the object of Section Liberal construction do not mean over doing or ':'_'in-ivsrfeadlng the plain meaning of the section. There can AA""not be any imoairrnent to the legislative intent or /1', 25 requirement and the spirit of the provision. . to construe the words "for any service renrierefioi'_~vo'{it "
mdiao in Section SORRA of the Actes i:nc'i.1fid'ieg:" {he 'serviAce.c_:A rendered to a foreign employesr-or Intiien' concerii{viwVith.eut physically going abroad and 'selrarice gvfoutsioe India, would be against' plai:iVn the term and also the legislative intent, has not interpreted the" with the plain meaning made by learned Single hhzige of law and hence the impugned-- ordergifiaible to be set aside. sA.Anothei<V:Vvvg_ro.und urged by Sri.G.Sarehgan, cvoensei'*~«.for the writ petitioners is based on the objectiyfe SORRA. Learned counsei submitted that the oisiective of the Section is to encourage the it"":'"v4.4'e:§'ci=:angerot technicai know-how by professionais and 4'_'therei§'y""augrnent the foreign exchange reserves so that ':'_the--'assessee and the country will be benefited. According the learned counsei, in such an event, the requirement /7 ' reepieciivvev costs.
'», iVsac* 29
18. Since it is moi: the case of the assessees that, any remuneratian vst:as.;éece'§\}e'_ti" §i'}.. foreign convertible currency, Ttheir' empioyers, for the sewicé§av:vL""-Vreneered V biy " L' remaining outside India, the rnaa_de.'b'y--:ti3enE1 in the writ petitions is unteriéfiiehi. petition are devoid of merit._*--
For the ,fore"gb--iizgfaésaiiasf}the writ appeals are aiiowed'iVeiid'eAi%i?ipu§%:eci_':ti:f§ier ieviéet aside. Consequentiy the writvxpefitiens ' di_§rnissed.
the ci"ici;iffista::ices, parties are directed to bear sdl-3__ Fudge 851%..
Jude'