| 17/5/2012 |
HOME
FSS
Downloads
|
| Board of Special Commissioners - Cases |
| Case No. 17b/61 |
Decided: 23 May, 1962 |
   |
|
An amendment can have retroactive effect only if expressly provided by law; interpretation of the wear and tear provisions - article 10, now 14, Income Tax Act
|
After disposing of the preliminary plea (see case no. 17A/61) the Board considered the merits of the case. The point at issue was whether, in regards to the first year of operation of plant and machinery, the initial allowance and the wear and tear allowance were to be calculated separately and distinctly on the original outlay or whether the wear and tear allowance was to be computed on the depreciated value. This involved an interpretation of sub-articles 10(1)(g) and (k) of the Act.
The Board observed that in 1960 a new sub-article (3) to article 10 had been enacted, providing that "for the avoidance of doubt, the deduction under paragraph (k) of subsection (1) of this section forms part and shall be deemed always to have formed part of the deduction under paragraph (g) of that subsection".
The Commissioner raised the question as to whether a new provision could be put into effect retroactively. The Board agreed in principle that a legal enactment was not to be invoked retroactively as it could have a bearing on antecedent judicial proceedings. This, however, was not the case if the legislator expressly provided otherwise. The wording of the new sub-article was clear and unambiguous. The provisions of the two sub-articles of article 10 were meant to be implemented concurrently, as from the promulgation of the Act in 1949.
|
|
|
|
|