SOUTHERN ROADWAYS LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL submitted that the question now raised, is one which arises under the Finance Act, 1983, which question, if considered in the light of the speech of the Finance Minister which preceded the enactment, and in the light of the settled law that the court must take the words in a fiscal statute as they occur, not adding to them or subtracting therefrom, as also in the light of the revised definition of the "jeep" given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, tenth edition (2000), is a question of law, reference of which should be called for by this court. The question reference of which is sought by the assessee is as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that jeep owned by the company should be treated as a motor car for the purpose of Section 40(3)(vii) of the Finance Act, 1983.

(2.) "Jeep" was defined even in the earlier editions of the Oxford Dictionary as "motor vehicle". That is the manner in which this court construed it in the case of E. I. D. Parry (India) Ltd v. CIT 12000] 243 ITR 116, wherein this court reaffirmed its earlier decision in the case of Crompton Engineering Co. (Madras) Ltd. v. CIT 11992] 193 ITR 483, and held that a jeep constitutes a motor car for the purpose of Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act. That provision limited the allowable expenditure on the items specified in Section 37(3B)(ii) with regard to running and maintenance of aircraft and motor cars. The Kerala High Court, in the case of Commr. of Agrl. I. T. v. Good Hope Plantation has taken a similar view.

(3.) WHEN the term "motor car" is used in a statute, the meaning to be assigned to it would depend upon the context in which it is used and purpose of the statute, as also the scheme of a particular provision. Whereas, in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, to which counsel referred, general classes of motor vehicles are set out, and "jeep" will have to be distinguished from a "motor car", which is also used in the relevant entry in that Act, the Income-tax Act merely refers to a motor car and does not mention any other motor vehicle. That term in the income-tax Act is meant to be an all inclusive term meant to encompass all vehicles, which can properly be regarded as "motor cars" in a broad sense. The absence of a definition in the enactment does not come in the way of such a construction. It is the duty of the court to ascertain the meaning of the terms employed in the enactment and give effect to the meaning so ascertained. While doing that task, the court does not rewrite the law, nor does it supply a omission, which it has noticed in the Act.