Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The additional rupee liability incurred on imported capital assets or, as the case may be, any decrease in such liability, in the circumstances stated in the earlier paragraph, will not, however, be taken into account in computing the actual cost of the asset for the purpose of deduction on account of development rebate.' Basing on the aforesaid notes, on behalf of the Revenue, it was contended mainly that the purpose of Section 43A was to deal with all devaluation cases. Therefore, any appreciation or depreciation in value of assets, as a result of devaluation in profit or loss arising therefrom, must be governed by the special provisions of Section 43A. A special provision has been made and this is the only provision to guide the matter. Before we deal with that aspect of the matter, we must refer to Section 43(1) which uses a non obstante clause. The Supreme Court had observed in the case of South India Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue , explaining the purpose of such a clause at page 215 dealing with Article 372 of the Constitution of India (p. 89 of 15 STC) :

' That apart, even if Article 372 continues the pre-Constitution laws of taxation, that provision is expressly made subject to the other provisions of the Constitution. The expression "subject to" conveys the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made subject. Further, Article 278 opens out with a non obstante clause. The phrase "notwithstanding anything in the Constitution" is equivalent to saying that in spite of the other articles of the Constitution, or that the other articles shall not be an impediment to the operation of Article 278. While Article 372 is subject to Article 278, Article 278 operates in its own sphere in spite of Article 372. The result is that Article 278 overrides Article 372 ; that is to say, notwithstanding the fact that a pre-Constitution taxation law continues in force under Article 372, the Union and the State Governments can enter into an agreement in terms of Article 278 in respect of Part B States depriving the State law of its efficacy. In one view, Article 277 excludes the operation of Article 372, and in the other view, an agreement in terms of Article 278 overrides Article 372. In either view, the result is the same, namely, that at any rate during the period covered by the agreement, the States ceased to have any power to impose the tax in respect of "works contracts".'