TAXES OFFICER, CIRCLE-B, BHARATPUR versus M/S BHAGAT SINGH on 21 January 2021

1. This SLP is against a judgment and order dated 9.7.2020 passedby the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur dismissing theRevision Petition being SB Sales Tax Revision/Reference No. 165/2019,filed by the Petitioner, against an order dated 08.10.2018 passed by theRajasthan Tax Board, whereby Appeal No. 1132/2017/Bharatpur filedby the Petitioner against reversal by the Appellate Authority of a TaxAssessment Order dated 9.10.2012 of the Assistant Commissioner,Commercial Tax Department, Circle B, Bharatpur, had been rejected bythe Rajasthan Tax Board.

2. The Respondent had purchased a truck/trailer (hereinafterreferred to as ‘said vehicle’) from one M/s Ashok Auto Sales Ltd ofAligarh, Uttar Pradesh, for consideration of Rs. 16,20,000/- vide Invoice A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ANo. C1273/09 dated 26.12.2009. The said vehicle was registered inBharatpur in Rajasthan and given the Registration No. RJ-05-GA-5299.

3. On 11[th]July 2012, that is, almost three years after the date ofpurchase of the said vehicle, summons were issued to the Respondentunder Sections 3, 6 and 7 of the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Motor VehicleBinto Local Areas Act 1988, hereinafter referred to as the Entry Tax Actof 1988.

4. It appears that the Respondent failed to appear pursuant to thesummons, whereupon an Assessment Order dated 9.10.2012 was passedby the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes Department, Circle -CB, Bharatpur, levying on the Respondent, tax of Rs.2,26,800/-, that is,14% of the purchase value under Sections 3, 6 and 7 of the Entry TaxAct of 1988, alongwith penalty of Rs.1,000/- and interest of Rs. 72,576/-, the total demand being Rs. 3,00,376/-.

5. Being aggrieved, the Respondent filed an appeal before theDAppellate Authority, Commercial Tax Department, Bharatpur beingAppeal No. 134/RET/2016 – 17/A.A./Bharatpur, inter alia, contendingthat (i) the summons issued for 9.10.2012 was received by theRespondent after that date, after which no further notice was issuedand (ii) the Assessment Order was barred by limitation, the same havingbeen passed beyond the period of 2 years from the date of purchase ofEthe said vehicle. Even otherwise, the liability of the Respondent to EntryTax in respect of the said vehicle was disputed.

6. By an order dated 4.1.2017, the Appellate Authority allowedthe appeal of the said Respondent and set aside the Assessment Orderimpugned, holding that the Respondent was a “Casual Trader” and,Ftherefore, the limitation for passing an Assessment Order against himwas only 2 years from the date of the transaction.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order dated 4.1.2017 passedby the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 134/RET/2016-17/A.A./Bharatpur, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 1132/2017/Bharatpur beforeGthe Rajasthan Tax Board. The said appeal was rejected by the RajasthanTax Board, by a judgment and order dated 8.10.2018.

8. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the High Court beingS.B. Sales Tax Revision/Reference No. 165/2019, against the aforesaidorder dated 8.10.2018 of the Rajasthan Tax Board, which has beenH

COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, CIRCLE-B, BHARATPURv. M/S BHAGAT SINGH [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

dismissed by the order dated 9.7.2020 of the High Court, impugned inthis Special Leave Petition.

9. Some provisions of the Entry Tax Act, 1988, relevant to theissues involved in this case, are set out hereinbelow for convenience:- “3. Incidence of Tax. - (1) There shall be levied and collected atax on the purchase value of a motor vehicle, an entry of which iseffected into a local area for use or sale therein and which isliable for registration in the State under the Motor Vehicles Act,1939 (Central Act 4 of 1939), at such rate or rates as may benotified by the State Government from time to time but notexceeding the rates notified for motor vehicles under section 5 ofthe Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act 29 of 1954) orfifteen per cent of the purchase value of a motor vehicle, whicheveris less:

Provided that no tax shall be levied and collected in respect of amotor vehicle which was registered in any Union Territory or anyother State under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act 4 of1939) for a period of fifteen months or more before the date onwhich it is liable to be registered in the State under the said Act.

(2) The Tax shall be payable by an importer, - (a) if he is a dealer registered or liable to be registered under theprovisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act No, 29 of1954), in the manner and within the time as tax on sales is payableby him under the said Act; and

(b) if he is a person not covered by clause (a), on the date of entryof the motor vehicle into the local area, to the incharge of theentry check - post or the Commercial Taxes officer of the areawhere he ordinarily resides or carries on any business or providesany service, and the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act,1954 (Act No, 29 of 1954) as applicable to a registered dealer orcasual trader shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to such dealer or, asthe case may be, such person.

(3) The Tax shall be in addition to the tax levied and collected asOctroi by any local authority within its local area.

6. Offences and penalties. - (1) Where any person liable to paytax under this Act fails to comply with any of the provisions of the A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Act or rules made thereunder, then the Assessing Authority may,after giving such persons a reasonable opportunity of being heard,by order in writing impose on him in addition to any tax payable, asum by way of penalty not exceeding fifty per cent of the amountof tax.

A

B(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, all the provisions relatingto offences and penalties, including interest, of the Rajasthan SalesTax Act, 1954 (Act No. 29 of 1954) shall, mutatis mutandis applyin relation to the assessment, reassessment, collection andenforcement of payment of tax required to be collected under thisAct or in relation to any process connected with such assessment,Creassessment, collection or enforcement of payment as if the taxunder this Act were a tax under the said Act.

7. Applicability of the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales TaxAct, 1954 (Act No. 29 of 1954) and the rules madethereunder. - Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rulesDmade thereunder, the authorities empowered to asses, reassess,collect and enforce payment of tax under the Rajasthan SalesTax Act, 1954 (Act No. 29 of 1954) shall assess, reassess, collectand enforce payment of tax including penalty or interest payableby an importer under this Act as if the tax, penalty or interestEwere payable under the said Act, and for this purpose they mayexercise all or any of the powers assigned to them under the saidAct and all the provisions of the said Act and the rules madethereunder for the time being in force including the provisionsrelating to returns, advance, payment of tax, provisionalassessments, recover of tax, appeals, rebates, penalties, interest,Fcompounding of offences and other miscellaneous matters shall,mutatis mutandis, apply.”

10. Under Section 2(ccc) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994“Casual Trader” means a person who has, whether as principal, agentor in any capacity, occasional transaction of business nature involvingGthe buying, selling, supply or distribution of such goods as may be specifiedby the State Government by notification in the official gazette whetherfor cash, or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration orother valuable consideration.

11. Sections 10A and 10B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act pertainHto assessment and the time limit for assessment in the case of a Casual Trader. Section 10A(1) read with Section 10A(2) of the Rajasthan SalesTax Act, 1954 provides that every “Casual Trader”, on completion of atransaction of sale or purchase, for which he is liable to pay tax, shallmake a report to the Assessing Officer or to the Officer-in-charge of aCheck Post, of the sale or purchase price, tax payable thereon, etc. anddeposit the tax with such officer. Sub- section (3) of Section 10 enablesthe Assessing Officer to assess the tax payable by a “Casual Trader” onhis failure to make a report.

12. Section 10B(1) (iii) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954,which stipulates the time limit for assessment, is set out hereinbelow forconvenience:

“10B. TIME LIMIT FOR ASSESSMENT – (1) Noassessment shall be made -

(i) …..

(ii) …..

(iii) in cases falling under section 10A after expiry of one yearfrom the date of filing the report, and in the absence of any suchreport, after the expiry of two years from the date of thetransaction.”

13. In the case of a “Casual Trader”, the time limit for assessmentis one year from the date of making the report, and if no report is made,within two years from the date of the transaction. The date of transactionin this case is 26.12.2009. The question is whether assessment wasbarred upon expiry of two years from the date of transaction, and/or inother words after 25/26.12.2011.

14. In this Special Leave Petition, the main contention of thePetitioner is that a single transaction of purchase of a motor vehicledoes not bring a person within the definition of “Casual Trader”. “CasualTrader” envisages occasional transactions of business involving buyingand selling of goods. The plurality of transactions is a condition precedentfor treating a trader as a “Casual Trader”. It is contended that there wasonly a single transaction in this case. The Respondent could not, therefore,be held a “Casual Trader.

15. The Appellate Authority, the Rajasthan Tax Board and theHigh Court have concurred in arriving at the finding that the assessmentof the Respondent was barred by limitation as the Respondent was a“Casual Trader”. A perusal of the definition of “Casual Trader” makes it A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aamply clear that a person with occasional transactions of buying/sellingare to be treated as casual traders, for whom a shorter time limit forassessment has been imposed under Section 10B(iii) read with Section10A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1954. The Legislature could not,possibly, have intended that a person making 2 or 3 transactions shouldbe treated as a “Casual Trader”, but a person making only one transactionBshould be treated at par with regular traders.

16. It is well settled that in construing a statutory provision, wordsin the singular are to include the plural and vice versa, unless repugnantto the context in which the expression has been used, as provided inSection 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and provisions identicalCthereto in State enactments pertaining to General Clauses.

17. Relying on Section 13(b) of the Bombay General ClausesAct, 1904, which states that words in the singular shall include the plural,and vice versa, this Court has held that the expression “any bodies orpersons” in Section 43-A(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and AgriculturalDLands Act, 1948, will include a singular person, in the same way as theexpression “leases” in the provision will include a single lease.”[1]

18. The Court must interpret a statute in a manner which is just,reasonable and sensible. If the grammatical construction leads to someabsurdity or some repugnancy or inconsistency with the legislative intent,as may be deduced by reading the provisions of the statute as a whole,Ethe grammatical construction may be departed from to avoid anomaly,absurdity or inconsistency. To quote Venkatarama Aiyar, J. in TirathSingh v. Bachittar Singh. AIR 1955 SC 830 (at 833), “where thelanguage of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammaticalconstruction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purposeFof the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship orinjustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon itwhich modifies the meaning of the words, and even the structure of thesentence.” This view has been reiterated by this Court.

19. We, therefore, find no grounds to interfere with judgment andGorder impugned, under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in a catenaof subsequent decisions.

20. The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Ankit Gyan

SLP dismissed.

H

1 Govinda Bala Patil v. Ganpati Ramchandra Naikwade, (2013) 5 SCC 644