Taxing statuteCasus omissusSupreme Court of India

CIT v Shahzada Nand and Sons

AIR 1966 Supreme Court 134219661 min read
The case in brief30-second read
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.
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.
Principle
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.
Cite this

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

  1. 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.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • 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."

Cite this

Citation

CIT v. Shahzada Nand and Sons AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1342

Reported: AIR 1966 SC 1342. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.