Dr. Prannoy Roy & Anr. vs Cit & Anr. on 21 December, 2001
54. We feel that it would be fruitful to remember what was said
by Sinha CJ (as his lordship then was), while speaking for a Division
Bench of this court in Dr. Prannoy Roy v. Commissioner of Income-
tax: 254 ITR 755 (Del), with regard to the interpretation to be placed
on the term ―advance tax‖ as defined in section 2(1) of the said Act. It
was observed that an interpretation clause, as is well known, is not a
positive enactment. It was specifically noticed that section 2 of the said
Act began with the word ―unless the context otherwise requires‖. The
Division Bench held that though ―advance tax‖ has been defined to
mean the advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter XVII-C, such a definition is not an exhaustive one and that
―advance tax‖, apart from being used only for the purpose of Chapter
XVII-C, may be held to be tax paid in advance before its due date. In
other words, the term ―advance tax‖ is not restricted to mean the
advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
XVII-C. If the context requires, ―advance tax‖ may extend beyond the
territory of Chapter XVII-C and could very well refer to any tax paid in
advance before its due date. MAT credit represents that portion of
MAT which was not actually payable by the company assessee but, has
all the same, been collected by the government. It represents the tax
paid before it is due. In our view, the MAT credit which is available
for set off in a year falls within the meaning of ―advance tax‖ because
the context requires us to give such a purposive meaning.