Case: Shabina Abraham  Vs. Collector Of Central Excise & Customs


Decision:
1[ds]We have seen that the Act contains no machinery provisions for proceeding against a deadlegal heirs, such as are contained in the Income Tax Act. Obviously, therefore, duty and other sums do not becomewithout such machinery provisions. Further, Section 11 deals with modes of recovery of tax payable and does not deal with the subject matter at hand – namely machinery provisions for assessment in the hands of the estate of a dead person and, therefore, does not have much bearing on the matter in issue in the present case. The argument, therefore, as to the insertion of the proviso to Section 11 by an Amendment Act of 2004 so as to provide that if a person from whom some recoveries are due transfers his business to another person, then the excisable goods in the possession of the transferee can also be attached and sold again leads us nowhere. In fact learned counsel for the appellants also relied on this proviso to argue that theneed to add the proviso shows that nothing can be read into the Central Excises and Salt Act by implication. As has been stated above, Section 11 deals with an entirely different situation and the addition of the proviso therein is not of much significance as far as the question we have to answer isare afraid this argument cannot be countenanced in view of thisjudgment in State of Punjab v. M/s Jullunder Vegetables Syndicate, [1966] 2 S.C.R. 457. In that judgment, the question before this Court was whether a dissolved firm could be assessed to sales tax under the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, with respect to itsA reading of the ratio of the majority decision contained incase (supra) would lead to the conclusion that the necessary machinery provisions were already contained in the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 which were good enough to bring into the tax net persons who wished to evade taxes by the expedient of dissolving a partnership firm. The fact situation in the present case is entirely different. In the present case an individual proprietor has died through natural causes and it iscase that he has maneuvered his own death in order to evade excise duty.It is clear on a reading of the aforesaid paragraph that what revenue is asking us to do is to stretch the machinery provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on the basis of surmises and conjectures. This we are afraid is not possible. Before leaving the judgment incase (supra), we wish to add that so far as partnership firms are concerned, the Income Tax Act contains a specific provision in Section 189(1) which introduces a fiction qua dissolved firms. It states that where a firm is dissolved, the Assessing Officer shall make an assessment of the total income of the firm as if no such dissolution had taken place and all the provisions of the Income Tax Act would apply to assessment of such dissolved firm. Interestingly enough, this provision is referred to only in the minority judgment in M/s.case (supra).27. The argument that Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act is a machinery provision which must be construed to make it workable can be met by stating that there is no charge to excise duty under the main charging provision of a dead person, which has been referred to while discussing Section 11A read with the definition ofearlier in thiswill be noticed that this definition does not take us any further as it does not include legal representatives of persons who are since deceased. Equally, Section 6 of the Central Excises Act, which prescribes a procedure for registration of certain persons who are engaged in the process of production or manufacture of any specified goods mentioned in the schedule to the said Act does not throw any light on the question at hand as it says nothing about how a deadassessment is to continue after his death in respect of excise duty that may have escaped assessment.It remains to consider a judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellants, namely, Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore –III v. Dhiren Gandhi, 2012 (281) E.L.T. 64 (Karnataka). This judgment is correct in its conclusion that while interpreting the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, legal heirs who are not the persons chargeable to duty under the Act cannot be brought within the ambit of the Act by stretching its provisions. To the extent that this judgment holds what is set out hereinbelow, it isdo not find any provision in the Act which foists any such liability in the case of intestate succession. In other words, there is no provision which empowers the authorities to recover due from a deceased assessee by proceeding against his legal heirs. The way section 11 and 11A are worded, it is amply clear, the legislature has consciously kept away the legal heirs from answering to liabilities under the31. The impugned judgment in the present case has referred to Ellis C.case but has not extracted the real ratio contained therein. It then goes on to say that this is a case of short levy which has been noticed during the lifetime of the deceased and then goes on to state that equally therefore legal representatives of a manufacturer who had paid excess duty would not by thereasoning be able to claim such excess amount paid by the deceased. Neither of these reasons are reasons which refer to any provision of law. Apart from this, the High Court went into morality and said that the moral principle of unlawful enrichment would also apply and since the law will not permit this, the Act needs to be interpreted accordingly. We wholly disapprove of the approach of the High Court. It flies in the face of first principle when it comes to taxing statutes. It is therefore necessary to reiterate the law as it stands.This Court has, in a plethora of judgments, referred to the aforesaid principles. Suffice it to quote from one of such judgments of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh v. Modi Sugar Mills, 1961 (2) SCR 189  atinterpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Nor can taxing statutes be interpreted on any presumptions or assumptions. The court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any assumed