also paid. 6. We wonder whether the Revenue would have accepted the bifurcation as argued by them in case the acquiring bank and the issuing bank had taken the stand which is now taken by them. While interpreting a tax provision, one must keep in mind that the legislature ennobles the ease of collection of tax and payment of tax. These principles, especially when there is no loss of revenue, can be taken into consideration for interpreting a provision in case of doubt or debate. 7. It is pertinent to note that even the opinion expressed by K.M. Joseph, J., while adopting a different interpretation of Section 65 (33a) of the Act, goes on to hold, vide paragraphs 86 onwards of the judgment, that there should not be double taxation. However, it has been observed thereafter that the onus to show that payment of service tax on the entire MDR was made by the acquiring bank will be on the issuing bank, that is, the respondent, M/s. Citibank N.A. 8. We would, on the last aspect, observe that