Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: parle exports in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 2 August, 1991Matching Fragments
10. Shri Narasimha Murthy, however, sought to contend that the requirement of the prior permission was held--and rightly--by the High Court to be a 'condition precedent' and that non-satisfaction of that condition precedent, whatever be the reason for the non-satisfaction, automatically en- tailed the logical consequences. Learned counsel further submitted that it was not as if the right to the refund was denied or defeated by the inaction of the Deputy Commission- er but only one mode of the refund--by adjustment--became unavailable. Learned counsel urged that the benefit envis- aged by the notification of 11th August, 1975 was in the nature of a concession and that the appellant in order to avail itself of its benefit had to show strict compliance with condition subject to which it was available. Learned counsel placed reliance on Kedarnath Jute Munufacturing Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta & Ors., [1965] 3 SCR 626 and Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and Anr. v. Messrs Parle Exports (P) Ltd., [1989] 1 SCC 345 to support his contention that where exemptions were concerned, the condi- tions thereof ought to be strictly construed and strict compliance with them exacted before a person could can lay claim to the benefit of the exemptions.
Francis Bennion in his "Statutory Interpretation", 1984 edition, says at page 683:
"Unnecessary technicality: Modern courts seek to cut down technicalities attendant upon a statutory procedure where these cannot be shown to be necessary to the fulfilment of the purposes of the legislation."
12. Shri Narasimhamurthy again relied on certain obser- vations in Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-1 & Anr. v. M/s. Parle Exports (P) Ltd., [1989] 1 SCC 345 in support of strict construction of a provision concerning exemptions. There is support of judicial opinion to the view that exemp- tions from taxation have a tendency to increase the burden on the other unexempted class of tax-payers and should be construed against the subject in case of ambiguity. It is an equally well-known principle that a person who claims an exemption has to establish his case. Indeed, in the very case of M/s. Parle Exports (P) Ltd. relied upon by Sri Narasimhamurthy, it was observed: