Nevertheless, at times, unintended rigidities creep into the law passed by the legislature. It is said that legislature only creates the skeleton. The executive provides much of the flesh and blood needed for actual implementation of acts passed by the legislature. That explains as to why almost every act passed by the Parliament or a state legislature is followed by numerous rules, regulations and notifications. To a great extent, it is a necessary evil.

The legislature, it has to be recognised,cannot perceive all exigencies and foresee all situations while discussing a bill brought before it for its consideration. Be that as it may, for all practical purposes, it the actual implementation of the law passed by the legislature that is important. Unintended interpretations may strike at the very purpose and objective of law. Harsher interpretation of law, based on hairsplitting technicalities and devoid of reasonableness, which negates the very spirit of legislative intent, cannot be said to subserve the public interest. Yet it happens. And happens in abundance and almost everyday. No law is free from this malaise. Tax laws, in particular, are notorious for disputes and litigation.

It is, however, important that the tax authorities observe the principle of uniformity in the application of a fiscal statute. But in actual practice it is observed more by way of exception than as a rule. It is not uncommon that taxpayers often complain against discriminatory practices in the administration of tax laws."We don't mind paying taxes. What pinches us is the difference in approach by different officials on the same issue."

In most fiscal statutes the executive is delegated the power to issue instructions to tax authorities. For instance, section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, provides wide power to the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) to issue instructions and directions to the field officers for the purpose of uniformity in the classification or any other aspect about the assessment of excise duties.

Similar provisions exist in the Customs Act. The Income Tax Act also provides for issue of circulars by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The board circulars are of considerable significance for the simple reason that they are binding on all the field formations. The Supreme Court has approved their legal validity. In KP Verghese vs Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Others -1981(4) SCC 173- the Supreme Court ruled that "circulars of Central Board of Direct Taxes are legally binding onthe Revenue."

The apex court put a seal on their supremacy by observing that "this binding character attaches through the circulars even if they are found not in accordance with the correct interpretation of the section and they depart or deviate from such construction." That should silence those undisciplined tax officials who may dare question the wisdom of the board.

There is an impression that commissioner (appeals) are not bound by the board circulars. This does not seem to be correct. As a general proposition, the board circulars are also binding on the commissioner (appeals). In Mathew M Thomas vs Commissioner of Income Tax-1999 (111) ELT 4(SC)-the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the full bench of the Kerala high court. The high court had taken the view a circular issued by CBDT had no application to the "proceedings" pending before commissioner (appeals) but applied only to the proceedings pending before the competent authority. Of late the disputes about the interpretation of excise andcustoms laws and procedures have spread like a disease. Even the most litigious seems to be tired of disputes. The board has the power to remove much of the hardship that may come to its notice in the actual administration of the Central Excise Act or the Customs Act by exercising the statutory powers, albeit certain logical limitations. In Keshavji Raoji and Co vs Commissioner of Income Tax -1990(183) ITR1- a bench of three judges of the apex court cautioned that the board cannot preempt a judicial interpretation of the scope and ambit of a provision of a act. "The circular cannot impose on the taxpayer a burden higher than what the act itself, on a true interpretation, envisages," ruled the apex court.