TAX CASE No.13 OF 1995 Application under Section 48(1) of the Bihar Finance Act 1081 arising out of Tribunal’s order dated 19.1.1993, passed in Revision MZ-311 of 1991, for the period 1987-88; COMMISSIONER OF COMM.TAXES,---------Appellant Bihar Versus M/S RAYMOND CEMENT WORKS,--------- Respondents MUZAFFARPUR With TAX No.43 oF 1998 Application under Section 48 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 arising out of Tribunal order dated 5.6.1996 passed in Revision Case Nos. P.T. 345/1994 and P.T. 346/1994 in the matter of penalty under Section 16(9) of the Bihar Finance Act for the period August, 1992 and August, 1993; COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX------Appellant Versus M/S JAY PEE REWA CEMENT,----------Respondents PATNA With TAX No.44 oF 1998 Application under Section 48 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 arising out of Tribunal order dated 5.6.1996 passed in revision Case No. P.T. 345/1994 in the matter of penalty under Section 16(9) of the Bihar Finance Act for the period August, 1992 and August, 1993; COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,---Appellant Versus M/S JAY PEE REWA CEMENT,---------Respondents Patna 2 For appellants:- Mrs. Nilu Agrawal,Government Advocate No.X & Mr. Sanjay Kumar,Advocate For Respondent:- Mr. S.D.Sanjay & Sushila Agarwal,Advocates P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA Prasad & Sinha,JJ:-All these references have come up before us on references made by Commercial Taxes Tribunal,Patna. In all these references, following question has been referred for our opinion:- “Whether words “part thereof” used in the Section 16(9) of the Bihar Finance Act means a whole month or the actual number of days of delay” It is an admitted position that the dealers M/s Raymond Cement Works, Muzzfarpur and M/s Jaypee Rewa Cement Exhibition Road, Patna had paid the admitted taxes few days beyond the due date. In view thereof, penalty was inflicted on them. But instead of the actual number of days for which the default was made, dealers were 3 made liable to make payment of interest of the entire month. Mrs. Nilu Agarwal, appears on behalf of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes,Patna, where as the dealer is represented by Mr. S.D.Sanjay. In order to answer the reference, we deem it expedient to reproduce Section 16(9) of the Bihar Finance Act,hereinafter referred to as the Act, same reads as follows:- “16.Returns, rebate and payment of admitted tax.-xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (9) If any registered dealer fails to make payment of the tax under sub- section (5) within the due date mentioned in the said sub-section or within the extended date under the proviso to clause (iii) of the said sub- section or of any extra amount of tax due from him according to return or revised return as mentioned in sub- section (6) and (7) or if a dealer to whom permission to file an annual return has been given under the third proviso to sub-section (1) of this Section fails to make payment of the tax in the manner prescribed, the prescribed authority shall, after allowing such a dealer an opportunity of being heard in the manner prescribed, impose a penalty which may extend to five percentum but not less than two and half percentum of the amount of tax for each of the first three months or part thereof following the due date or the extended date and to 4 ten percentum but not less than five percentum for each subsequent month or part thereof.” From a plain reading of Section 16(9) of the Act, it is evident that in case a dealer fails to make payment of the tax within due date, penalty can be inflicted at specified rate “ for each of the first three months or part thereof.” It is well settled that legislature does not waste its word. If the default of a day is construed to be a default of the entire month the words “ part thereof” shall be rendered superfluous. While interpreting a statute, this Court avoids a construction which renders the word used by the legislature to be superfluous. It is also well settled that fiscal statute has to be strictly construed. In face of the words “ part thereof” it is difficult to infer that legislature intended that in case of default of few days, the dealer has to pay interest for the whole month. The liability of paying interest arises on failure to make payment within due dates. We fail to understand as to how a dealer 5 can be held liable for payment of penalty subsequent to the date on which it had paid taxes. The discussion aforesaid leads us to conclude that the words “ part thereof” used in Section 16(9) of the Bihar Finance Act mean the actual number of days of delay. Accordingly, the question referred to our opinion is answered in the affirmative and it is held that the words “ part thereof” in Section 69 of the Bihar Finance Act shall mean actual number of days. References are answered accordingly. Let a copy of this opinion be forwarded to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad,J.) (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.) Patna High Court Dated the 4th of July,2008 A.Kumar/NAFR