CIT v. Shahzada Nand and Sons
Rule established
In a taxing statute, the court cannot supply casus omissus (a case omitted). If the Legislature has failed to cover a particular case, the court cannot extend the charging provision by implication to cover it. The subject is free of tax unless clearly within the letter of the law.
Facts
- Shahzada Nand and Sons received income from a particular source
- Revenue argued the income fell within the spirit of the charging section
- The express language of the section did not clearly cover the specific type of income
- Revenue invited the court to read the provision broadly to cover the omission
Issue
- Whether the court can supply a casus omissus in a taxing statute to bring an untaxed case within the charging provision.
Held
- In taxing statutes, there is no room for intendment or equity
- The court cannot supply words or extend the scope of the charging section
- A casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretation in fiscal legislation
- If a case is not covered by the express words, the subject goes free
- Revenue's appeal dismissed
Ratio Decidendi
In a taxing statute, the court cannot supply a casus omissus. The charging section must be construed strictly. If a particular case has been omitted from the language of the provision, the remedy lies with the Legislature, not the court.
How to use it in an exam
- Indian authority for the casus omissus rule in taxation
- Paired with Cape Brandy Syndicate and CIT v Vegetable Products
- Key line: "In CIT v. Shahzada Nand and Sons (1966), the Supreme Court held that a casus omissus in a taxing statute cannot be supplied by the court; if the Legislature has omitted to cover a case, the subject goes free."
Source
Source: AIR 1966 SC 1342
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.