J U D G M E N T

[WA Nos.710/2015,1013/2015, 1376/2018,, 824/2015, 875/2015, 882/2015, 1005/2015, 1006/2015]

S.V.BHATTI,J.

Appellants are the petitioners in the in W.P.(C)

No.24838/2013 and batch of cases. The writ appeals are filed against the judgment dated 20.12.2014 raise a simple point on the interpretation of proviso to Section 8 (a) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'KVAT Act, 2003') and consider the consequential challenge to proviso to (a) as illegal, ultra virus and unconstitutional. The question of construction paving way for the alleged challenge to proviso to (a) of KVAT Act 2003 appears to be simple, but the simple question posed by the appellants reminds this Court of the following quote from the Interpretation of Statutes - 5th Edition by Vepa P. Sarathi.

The net result is that the legislative object and intent must somehow be gathered by the court. But sometimes, there is obvious ambiguity in the meaning of a statute either because of the poverty of the language of the draftsman or want of imagination in not providing for conceivable situations, or due to an inept use of language. "Lack of legislative simplicity or clarity leads to interpretative co