News
New Revenue Bill to accommodate SC amendments
View(s):The new Inland Revenue Bill will be taken up for debate after making the amendments recommended by the Supreme Court, State Minister of Finance Eran Wickramaratne said.
“We will make the amendments without delay and take the Bill up for debate. This is a much needed piece of legislation for long-term fiscal sustainability,” he said.
Speaker Karu Jayasuriya informed Parliament on Friday that the Supreme Court had determined that four clauses in the Bill would either have to be amended or approved by a special majority of the House while one clause would not only need a special majority but would need to be approved by the people at a referendum.
The Court determined that Clauses 97, 98 and 100(1) (e) and 167 of the Bill were inconsistent with the Constitution and these clauses might either only be passed by a special majority as per Article 84(2) of the Constitution or be amended as per the determination of the Supreme Court to remove the inconsistencies.
All these clauses come under the administration provisions of the Bill. Clauses 97 and 98 provide for the appointment of “other tax officials” who can exercise, perform or discharge the power, duty or functions attached to the Commissioner General of Inland Revenue. Clause 100 (1) (e) enables information received in relation to a specific taxpayer to be disclosed to the Attorney General for the purpose of any civil or criminal proceedings or obtain the opinion or advice of the AG.
The Court noted that in a variety of civil litigation, the AG’s role has been recognised and as such there is justification for the AG to obtain information for the purpose of civil litigation as in the case of Clause 100 (1) (e) of the Bill. However such access to information should be restricted to only cases of filing actions for and against the State. If not it would be unconstitutional, the SC said.
To remove this inconsistency, the Court suggested that the Clause be amended to cover, both in criminal and civil proceedings, actions instituted by the State or actions filed against the State or where the opinion or advice of the AG has been sought in writing by the Department of Inland Revenue.
In the case of Clause 200 which refers to the interpretation of the provisions of the Bill, the Court determined it would require both parliamentary approval by a special majority and approval by the people at a referendum if it is to be enacted into law. “It is a well settled law that interpreting statutes is a power vested with courts and considered as part of the judicial power. When courts interpret statues it will consider the purpose and object of the Act as disclosed in the preamble, long title or in the body of the Act. Therefore, any Act requesting Court to follow a particular method of interpretation or consider material not forming part of the Act amounts to encroaching upon the powers of the judiciary and repugnant to the doctrine of separation of powers recognised in Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution. This clause violates Article 3 and 4 of the Constitution, the SC said.
The bench comprised Chief Justice Priyasath Dep, Justices Anil Gooneratne and Nalin Perera.