## Facts

- An Indian railway company financed its operations by issuing debentures to private investors.
- Under the relevant trust deed the Secretary of State for India in Council guaranteed payment of both principal and interest if the railway failed to meet its obligations, thereby increasing the marketability of the debt.
- The income tax authorities assessed the interest payable on the debentures. The taxpayer maintained that the interest was exempt under Section 5 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1886.
- Section 5 exempted interest on “Indian Government securities” from tax but did not define that term.
- The central factual dispute was whether the private company’s debentures, once guaranteed, assumed the legal character of securities “of” the Government, or whether they remained private instruments merely benefiting from a governmental surety.
- Lower courts reached conflicting conclusions, prompting an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and subsequently to the House of Lords sitting as the final court of appeal for India.

## Issues

1. Do debentures issued by a private Indian railway company, though guaranteed by the Secretary of State for India, fall within the statutory exemption for “Indian Government securities” contained in Section 5 of the 1886 Act?
2. When construing a fiscal provision, should a court depart from the ordinary grammatical meaning of the words in order to give effect to an asserted legislative purpose of encouraging investment in infrastructure?

## Decision

- By a unanimous judgment the House of Lords answered both questions in the negative.
- The Lords held that a “Government security” is a security issued by the Government itself, creating a direct obligation upon the public revenue. The guarantee only operated upon default by the railway; until such default the Government was under no primary liability.
- Consequently, the debentures continued to be corporate, not governmental, securities. They therefore attracted tax in the same manner as any other interest-bearing investment issued by a private entity.
- The court rejected submissions inviting it to treat the guarantee as transforming the legal nature of the instrument on policy grounds. Such an approach, it considered, would involve rewriting the statute.
- Because the wording of Section 5 was plain, there was no occasion to search for external evidence of intent or for equitable considerations that might extend the exemption.

## Legal Principles

- Literal rule in taxation: Where Parliament (or, in this case, the Indian legislature) uses clear language in a charging or exempting provision, courts must give that language its ordinary meaning, even if the outcome appears inconvenient or contrary to what some may regard as the economic objective of the enactment.
- Exemptions are construed strictly: A taxpayer seeking relief must bring themself squarely within the terms prescribed by the legislature; any ambiguity is resolved in favour of the revenue.
- Guarantees versus primary liability: The existence of a governmental guarantee does not in itself convert a private liability into a public one. The nature of the security is determined by the identity of the issuer, not by the presence of a contingent surety.
- Separation of powers in fiscal matters: Courts respect the exclusive competence of the legislature to allocate public funds and to define the scope of exemptions. Judicial enlargement of an exemption would usurp that function.
- Drafting significance: The decision demonstrates that careful statutory drafting is essential where legislatures intend to confer tax privileges on classes of investment instruments wider than those issued by the state itself.

## Conclusion

Secretary of State in Council of India v Scoble affirms that exemptions in tax legislation will be confined to the exact language chosen by the legislature. Although the guarantee was intended to make the railway debentures more attractive, it did not suffice to shift the incidence of tax. The judgment preserves predictability in fiscal affairs by insisting that taxpayers and administrators alike look first to the words of the statute and not to generalized policy considerations.


Secretary of State in Council of India v Scoble [1903] AC 299