Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Lastly, learned counsel urged that in any event it is well- settled rule of construction of taxing statutes that if two views are possible then the view that is favourable to assessee should be executed and in case of doubt it should be resolved in favour of that assessee.

16. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, submitted that before the insertion of the Explanation, under Section 10(20) of the 1961 Act, by Finance Act, 2002, various High Courts were of the view that since "local authority" has not been defined under 1961 Act, the definition may be borrowed from Section 3(31) of the 1897 Act. However, according to learned counsel, after the insertion of the Explanation, vide Finance Act, 2002 whereby "local authority" stood defined exhaustively, it was not necessary to invoke Section 3(31) of the 1897 Act. He further contended that the Notes on Clauses in the Finance Bill 2002 shows that Parliament intended to restrict the exemption to Panchayat and Municipality, as referred to in Article 243(d) and Article 243P(e) of the Constitution of India, Municipal Committees and District Boards, legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government with the control or management of a local fund as well as Cantonment Boards as defined under Section 3 of the Cantonment Act, 1924. In this connection, learned counsel urged that AMC(s) is not mentioned in the Explanation. Therefore, according to learned counsel, it would not be proper to read AMC(s) into the Explanation particularly when Section 10(20) of the 1961 Act is an exemption provision.

18. Learned counsel further submitted that the explanation/definition clause inserted by Finance Act, 2002 is exhaustive as it uses the expression "means" as contradistinct from the expression "includes". Learned counsel submitted that borrowing definition from other statutes is not a safe guide, particularly, when the explanation is a definition section, specifically designed for grant of the exemption under Section 10(20) of the 1961 Act.

19. Learned counsel next contended that in the hierarchy, mentioned in 1998 Act, the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board, as defined under Section 5, is in complete control of the finances of AMC(s) and, therefore, according to learned counsel, the clarification, issued by CBDT, expressly states that Agricultural Marketing Societies and Agricultural Marketing Boards shall stand excluded from the said Explanation. According to learned counsel, since the said Board is the highest authority under the 1998 Act, the CBDT Circular clarifies that the exemption shall not be admissible to such Agricultural Marketing Boards and when such an exemption is not admissible to Agricultural Marketing Boards it would not be admissible to a subordinate body under the 1998 Act, namely, AMC(s).