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.
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.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.