GEORGE BANERJI V. EMPEROR
FACTS
The complaint in the given scenario was made by the Municipal Board against Mr. G. Banerji of Canning Road for using a bicycle with a motor-wheel attachment without a licence.
ISSUE
The issue in the current case pertained to the question of how certain vehicles should be taxed.
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
- The court observed that when the issue involved the question of taxation, enactments which made the public liable to pay taxes or charges of this nature must be construed strictly. It further clarified stating that unless the language under which a charge is sought is perfectly clear, the charging authorities are not entitled to assess a charge and the public have a right to know what exactly are the charges imposed upon them.
- The court observed that in the given scenario, there are three classes of vehicles i.e. (1) a motor car. (2) a motor bicycle. (3) a bicycle. It stated that the vehicle in question was that of the modern invention. It was an ordinary bicycle with a motor-wheel which might be affixed to or detached from the bicycle according to the rider. When it was detached, it provided a motor power enabling the rider to propel the machine by motor power.
- It was observed by this Hon'ble court that the above mentioned vehicle wasn’t really a motor vehicle in the ordinary or commercial sense of the world. It also disregarded the vehicle as a motor bicycle if it was a two wheeler and sometimes propelled by a motor. It is regarded as a vehicle that is propelled both by mechanical means and human agency. The motor is a temporary attachment and not a part of a vehicle itself.
- The court held that the vehicle was undoubtedly a bicycle and Mr. Bannerjee never disputed his liability to be treated as such. If the municipal authorities have the desire to call it a motor and impose a further burden upon Mr. Banerjee, they must obtain a notification which would bring it within the definition and be able to impose an additional liability by way of tax.
RELEVANT THEORY
The construction of a statute according to its letter is a construction which takes the language used in its literal sense. When a strict construction is appropriate, the particular case to come within the purview of the statute must be within both its letter and its spirit and reason. The literal meaning of a statute is that which the words express, taking them in their natural and ordinary sense, that is, giving to words of common use their commonly accepted meaning and to technical words their proper technical connotation. The spirit and reason of the law, on the other hand, is nothing more than the legislative purpose, that is the purpose with which the law was made or the reason why the legislators enacted the statute. Strict construction of a statute confines its operation to cases which are clearly within the letter of the law as well as within its spirit and reason. It is not enough that the letter of the law may include the given situation unless the spirit and reason of the law also include it. The framers of a law are presumed to have in mind a reasonably consistent and intelligible plan or scheme for achievement of the legislative purpose. Further, according to Sutherland, a strict interpretation would depend on multiple factors such as-
- With reference to former law
- With reference to the rights and persons affected
- With reference to the letter or language of the statute
- With reference to the purpose and object of the statute.