Further, learned author has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ratan Melting. If it has been correctly understood, in Ratan Melting the issue was whether the circular issued by the Government gets primacy over the judgment of the Supreme Court . It was held that the circular cannot override the law declared by the Supreme Court since such law is binding by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution. The Government’s approach to support this proposition before the Supreme Court cannot be faulted. Similarly, is the position as regards the High Court since High Court being a constitutional court exercises power of judicial review which has been held to be part of basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, the judgment in the case of Ratan Melting cannot be pressed into service to argue that the circular dated 29.5.2012 is invalid or unenforceable. As seen from the opening part of para 6 of the judgment extracted by the learned author, even in Ratan Melting case, the Supreme Court has held that Circulars and instructions issued by the Board were binding in law on the authorities under the statutes.

As a matter of policy, it has been decided that the past cases shall not be re-opened. It is not that the decision not to re-open the past cases is being applied selectively. The decision is to apply uniformly So the question of violation of Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution should not arise. Two categories of cases viz the cases pending before the revenue authorities on the date of enforcement of the amendment Act and those already closed form two separate and distinct classes.

“As a general principle of interpretation, where the words of a statute are plain, precise and unambiguous, the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language of the statute itself and no external evidence such as Parliamentary Debates, Reports of the Committees of the Legislature or even the statement made by the Minister on the introduction of a measure or by the framers of the Act is admissible to construe those words. It is only where a statute is not exhaustive or where its language is ambiguous, uncertain, clouded or susceptible of more than one meaning or shades of meaning, that external evidence as to the evils, if any, which the statute was intended to remedy, or of the circumstances which led to the passing of the statute may be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining the object which the legislature had in view in using the words in question.”