Principles of Construction

Where language of a statute was plain, clear and definite, then Court could not look for or impose another meaning.

For interpretation of taxing statute, charging provision was the most relevant provision to determine scope and intent of an enactment, as there was no scope for any intendment or for drawing inference, while interpreting charging provisions of taxing statute.

When a statute provided for a particular thing to be done in a specific manner, then it had to be done in such manner and Courts were not designed to legislate but had to interpret statutes according to their ordinary and plain meaning

Courts could not import or supply words or provisions no matter how laudable and desirable doing so appeared

Courts could not put into a statute words which were not expressed and which could not be reasonably implied on any recognized principle of construction.

Redundancy could not be attached to any words added by the Legislature in a statute and where Legislature has added certain words subsequently, intention could very well be gathered that such words had been added with a purpose and in order to achieve a goal

Textually permissible interpretation that furthers rather than obstructs the purpose of enactment should be favoured

Interpretation always depends on context, and context always included evident purpose, and evident purpose always included effectiveness

Every word had to be given effect and the courts cannot subtract or add any word in a statute.

Such principle always draw upon first on the express language of the statute, next the context, then the object and purposes and last of all on the policy

Where the express language presents no difficulty in interpretation, resort cannot be had to the context

Where the context and the language resolve the meaning, resort to object and purposes is uncalled for.