1.5 Spot recovery

Preface

“Truth does not matter, facts do” – this divides the entire population of tax litigants and places them in two groups – those taxpayers who are distraught at the way GST has taken shape in the statute without any regard to the ‘basic features’ behind its implementation, and those taxpayers who are unmoved by the barrage of notices demanding only that this law be implemented within the ‘four corners’ of the statute without any regard to extra legislative means of delivering justice. Explanation of the deliberation under each head or topic is interesting but examples make for more efficient illustration of the point in the deliberations. This book relies on examples to illustrate than burden readers with elaborate textual deliberations wherever it may be more efficient to convey the point of deliberation. Tax laws must be interpreted strictly. Only Courts are free to travel outside the express words of the statute and declare the interpretation. It would be perilous, especially for young professionals, to rely on purposive construction of the statute. And all too often they are heard saying “intention of Legislature is” as if they were secretly privy to some conversation with Legislature or had direct access into Legislature’s thoughts. With an Executive, willing to correct, with great humility and retrospectively even, any inept words used to express that intention, no taxpayer can claim to have an understanding beyond the express words in the statute. Case law precedent is a bulwark against disparate treatment of identical facts. Judicial declaration of interpretation is considered ‘authority’ that must be followed by lower judiciary and all administrative functionaries responsible for adjudication. Taxpayers cite case law on a given topic as if to silence any further discussion on that topic. Unless the authority is from the Apex Court, interpretation must expose the ratio decidendi to find wider acceptance, not only for the superiority of the authority furnishing the interpretation but also the consensus that the ratio facilitates. ‘Obedience’ is adherence to a sovereign authority, but ‘observation’ is adherence is to a meritorious ratio. Unless a decision offers a clear ratio for the interpretation ascribed to the express words of the statute, it cannot be ‘case law’. Another

I-5