Case: Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur Vs. Bhagat Singh

under this Act were a tax under the said Act. 7. Applicability of the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act No. 29 of 1954) and the rules made thereunder.—Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the authorities empowered to asses, reassess, collect and enforce payment of tax under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act No. 29 of 1954) shall assess, reassess, collect and enforce payment of tax including penalty or interest payable by an importer under this Act as if the tax, penalty or interest were payable under the said Act, and for this purpose they may exercise all or any of the powers assigned to them under the said Act and all the provisions of the said Act and the rules made thereunder for the time being in force including the provisions relating to returns, advance, payment of tax, provisional assessments, recover of tax, appeals, rebates, penalties, interest, compounding 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, agent or in any capacity, occasional transaction of business nature involving the buying, selling, supply or distribution of such goods as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the official gazette whether for cash, or for deferred payment, or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration. 11. Sections 10A and 10B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act pertain to 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 Sales Tax Act, 1954 provides that every Casual Trader, on completion of a transaction of sale or purchase, for which he is liable to pay tax, shall make a report to the Assessing Officer or to the Officer-in-charge of a Check Post, of the sale or purchase price, tax payable thereon, etc. and deposit the tax with such officer. Sub-section (3) of Section 10 enables the Assessing Officer to assess the tax payable by a Casual Trader on his 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 for convenience: 10B. Time Limit for Assessment— (1) No assessment shall be made — (i) ….. (ii) ….. (iii) in cases falling under section 10A after expiry of one year from the date of filing the report, and in the absence of any such report, after the expiry of two years from the date of the transaction. 13. In the case of a Casual Trader, the time limit for assessment is 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 transaction in this case is 26-12-2009. The question is whether assessment was barred upon expiry of two years from the date of transaction, and/or in other words after 25/26-12-2011. 14. In this Special Leave Petition, the main contention of the Petitioner is that a single transaction of purchase of a motor vehicle does not bring a person within the definition of Casual Trader. Casual Trader envisages occasional transactions of business involving buying and selling of goods. The plurality of transactions is a condition precedent for treating a trader as a Casual Trader. It is contended that there was only 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 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 under section 10B(iii) read with Section 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. 16. 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 Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and provisions identical thereto in State enactments pertaining to General Clauses. 17. Relying on Section 13(b) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which states that words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa, this Court has held that the expression any bodies or persons in Section 43-A(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, will include a singular person, in the same way as the expression leases in the provision will include a single lease. (Govinda Bala Patil v. Ganpati Ramchandra Naikwade [2013] 5 SCC 644) 18. The Court must interpret a statute in a manner which is just, reasonable and sensible. If the grammatical construction leads to some absurdity or some repugnancy or inconsistency with the legislative intent, as may be deduced by reading the provisions of the statute as a whole, the grammatical construction may be departed from to avoid anomaly, absurdity or inconsistency. To quote Venkatarama Aiyar, J. in Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh AIR 1955 SC 830 (at 833), where the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words, and even the structure of the sentence. This view has been reiterated by this Court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Casual Trader envisages occasional transactions of business involving buying and selling of goods. The plurality of transactions is a condition precedent for treating a trader as a Casual Trader. It is contended that there was only 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 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 under section 10B(iii) read with Section 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.16. 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 Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and provisions identical thereto in State enactments pertaining to General Clauses.17. Relying on Section 13(b) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which states that words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa, this Court has held that the expression any bodies or persons in Section 43-A(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, will include a singular person, in the same way as the expression leases in the provision will include a single lease. (Govinda Bala Patil v. Ganpati Ramchandra Naikwade [2013] 5 SCC 644)18. The Court must interpret a statute in a manner which is just, reasonable and sensible. If the grammatical construction leads to some absurdity or some repugnancy or inconsistency with the legislative intent, as may be deduced by reading the provisions of the statute as a whole, the grammatical construction may be departed from to avoid anomaly, absurdity or inconsistency. To quote Venkatarama Aiyar, J. in Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh AIR 1955 SC 830  (at 833), where the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words, and even the structure of the sentence. This view has been reiterated by this Court.19. We, therefore, find no grounds to interfere with judgment and order impugned, under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in a catena of subsequent decisions.