There is no "equity" in a tax law. One must look strictly at the letter of the law; if the person sought to be taxed does not fall within the letter, they cannot be taxed by implication. 7. The Presumptions
The book dedicates entire chapters to explaining these Latin maxims with clarity and a wealth of judicial examples. It also covers presumptions that courts apply, such as the presumption against a retrospective operation of statutes, the presumption that a statute does not intend to oust the jurisdiction of courts, and the presumption that Parliament does not make a mistake or create an impossibility.
When the text remains ambiguous even after using internal aids, courts look to external sources. Justice G.P. Singh’s treatise meticulously evaluates the admissibility of these resources: principles of statutory interpretation gp singh
: Courts should consider what "mischief" or defect the statute was intended to remedy. Harmonious Construction
Statutory interpretation is the process of determining the meaning and intention of a statute. It is a crucial aspect of law as it enables judges, lawyers, and lawmakers to understand and apply the law correctly. GP Singh, a renowned Indian jurist, has outlined several principles of statutory interpretation that are widely accepted and followed in India and other countries. There is no "equity" in a tax law
The text serves as a definitive guide for judges, lawyers, and students, bridging the gap between theoretical rules and their practical application in the courtroom. Core Philosophy: The Intention of the Legislature
A word is known by the company it keeps (context matters). The Presumptions The book dedicates entire chapters to
G.P. Singh’s "Principles of Statutory Interpretation" is also highly valued for its clear explanation of Latin maxims and linguistic sub-rules that govern text analysis:
He elevates the Golden Rule by linking it to the context of the statute . He argues that absurdity is not a subjective feeling but must be deduced from the object of the Act. If the literal meaning defeats the purpose of the Act, the court must modify the language.
It prevents a statute from defeating its own obvious purpose due to clumsy drafting. The Mischief Rule (Rule in Heydon’s Case)
The rationale is rooted in the separation of powers. Courts must not amend, alter, or improve a statute under the guise of interpretation. If a literal reading leads to hardship or injustice, it is the prerogative of the legislature, not the judiciary, to amend the law. The Golden Rule (Modifying the Literal Meaning)