LexTAXES OFFICER, CIRCLE-B, BHARATPUR versus M/S BHAGAT SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R. [2021] 1 S.C.R. 488 488 COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, CIRCLE-B, BHARATPUR v. M/S BHAGAT SINGH (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15870 of 2020) JANUARY 21, 2021 [INDIRA BANERJEE AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.] Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicle into Local Areas Act, 1988 – Respondent purchased a truck/trailer on 26.12.2009 – On 11.07.2012, the respondent received a summon under 1988 Act – The respondent failed to appear – On 09.10.2012, the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes Department levied a total demand of Rs.3,00,376/-, which included tax, penalty and interest – Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and contended that the Assessment order was barred by limitation, the same having passed beyond the period of 2 years from the date of purchase of vehicle – The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and held that the respondent was a “Casual Trader”– Petitioner-Commercial Tax Officer filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board, which was rejected – A revision petition filed before the High Court was also dismissed – Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that there was only a single transaction in the instant case and the condition precedent for treating a trader as a “Casual Trader” was the plurality of transactions – Held: The Appellate Authority, the Rajasthan Tax Board and the High Court have concurred in arriving at the finding that the assessment of the respondent was barred by limitation as the respondent was a “Casual Trader” – A perusal of the definition of “Casual Trader” makes it amply clear that a person with occasional transactions of buying/selling are to be treated as casual traders, for whom a shorter time limit for assessment has been imposed u/s.10B(iii) r/w. s.10A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1954 – The Legislature could not, possibly, have intended that a person making 2 or 3 transactions should be treated as a “Casual Trader”, but a person making only one transaction should be treated at par with regular traders – Therefore, no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. A B C D E F G H 489 Interpretation of Statutes – It is well settled that in construing a statutory provision, words in the singular are to include the plural and vice versa, unless repugnant to the context in which the expression has been used, as provided in s.13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and provisions identical thereto in State enactments pertaining to General Clauses. Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh AIR 1955 SC 830 : [1955] 2 SCR 457; Govinda Bala Patil v. Ganpati Ramchandra Naikwade, (2013) 5 SCC 644 : [2013] 8 SCR 461 – referred to. Case Law Reference [1955] 2 SCR 457 referred to Para 17 [2013] 8 SCR 461 referred to Para 18 EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15870 of 2020. From the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2020 in S.B. Sales Taxes Revision/Reference No. 165 of 2019 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur. Vishal Meghwal, Milind Kumar, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by INDIRA BANERJEE, J. 1. This SLP is against a judgment and order dated 9.7.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur dismissing the Revision Petition being SB Sales Tax Revision/Reference No. 165/2019, filed by the Petitioner, against an order dated 08.10.2018 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, whereby Appeal No. 1132/2017/Bharatpur filed by the Petitioner against reversal by the Appellate Authority of a Tax Assessment Order dated 9.10.2012 of the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Circle B, Bharatpur, had been rejected by the Rajasthan Tax Board. 2. The Respondent had purchased a truck/trailer (hereinafter referred to as ‘said vehicle’) from one M/s Ashok Auto Sales Ltd of Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, for consideration of Rs. 16,20,000/- vide Invoice COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, CIRCLE-B, BHARATPUR v. M/S BHAGAT SINGH A B C D E F G H 490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R. No. C1273/09 dated 26.12.2009. The said vehicle was registered in Bharatpur in Rajasthan and given the Registration No. RJ-05-GA-5299. 3. On 11th July 2012, that is, almost three years after the date of purchase of the said vehicle, summons were issued to the Respondent under Sections 3, 6 and 7 of the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicle into Local Areas Act 1988, hereinafter referred to as the Entry Tax
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.