Interpretation of penal, taxing, beneficial & remedial statutes MCQs with Answers

Rely on the literal words, ignoring subject matter

Treat a public-welfare purpose as decisive by itself

Decide from the gravity of the harm the offence causes

Read wording, subject matter and object together

When excluded expressly or by necessary implication

Whenever the offence is labelled a public nuisance

Whenever the accused was ignorant of the law

When the statute has a welfare object, that alone sufficing

Whenever the prosecution proves intention, because intentional offences are necessarily strict-liability offences.

When the statute excludes that requirement expressly or by necessary implication.

Whenever the accused denies intention, regardless of what the statute requires.

Never; Parliament cannot exclude a mental-element requirement in any offence.

liberally construed

strictly construed

purposively construed

None of the given options is correct

Strict Construction

Liberal Construction

Equitable Construction

Harmonious Construction

In interpreting a taxation statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Taxation statutes cannot be interpreted on any presumption or assumption.

Before taxing any person, it must be shown that he falls within the ambit of the charging section by clear words used in the section and the golden rule of interpretation applies.

If the words are ambiguous and open to two interpretations, the benefit of interpretation is to be given to the State.

Both, in interpreting a taxation statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place and taxation statutes cannot be interpreted on any presumption or assumption, and before taxing any person, it must be shown that he falls within the ambit of the charging section by clear words used in the section and the golden rule of interpretation applies.

Penal provisions are read like remedial statutes, leaning neither towards the accused nor the State

Of two reasonable constructions, the court must prefer the one that exempts the subject from penalty

Of two reasonable constructions, the court must prefer the one that best protects the public interest

A penal provision must be given the widest meaning its words can bear so that no offender escapes

He is not liable, because no lease came into existence at or about the time the money was received

He is liable, because the words "in respect of" are read widely to cover an agreement to lease

He is liable, because rent-control laws are welfare laws whose penal clauses are read against landlords

He is liable if Suresh proves that he suffered financial loss from the failed lease

They must be strictly construed in favour of the subject

They must be read in the light of the executive instructions issued under the Act

They must be given a beneficial construction in favour of tenants

They must be read purposively to cover the transfer of a tenancy for money

The ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the revenue, not the assessee

The court must adopt the reading that best advances the economic purpose of the exemption

The notification must be referred back to the Government for clarification before it is applied

The benefit of the ambiguity must go to the assessee, as with an ambiguous charging provision