Absurdity due to grammatical construction may be departed to avoid any inconsistency.

Last updated: 13 February 2021

Save Share

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court considered a case involving entry tax on a vehicle purchased in Uttar Pradesh but registered in Rajasthan. The tax authorities issued summons to the respondent nearly three years after the purchase. The court's judgement, while not fully detailed in the provided text, suggests a willingness to interpret laws flexibly to avoid absurd or inconsistent outcomes arising from grammatical constructions.

Court :
Supreme Court

Brief :
This SLP is against a judgment and order dated 9.7.2020 passed bythe 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 08.10.2018passed 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.

Citation :
Appeal Number : Special Leave Petition (C) No.15870/2020

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Special Leave Petition (C) No.15870/2020

Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur ...Petitioner

Versus

M/s Bhagat Singh …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Indira Banerjee, J.

1. This SLP is against a judgment and order dated 9.7.2020 passed bythe 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 08.10.2018passed 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, UttarPradesh, for consideration of Rs. 16,20,000/- vide Invoice 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 theRespondent 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 Act of 1988.

To know more in details find the attachment file

FAQ :

The case revolved around the interpretation of the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicle into Local Areas Act 1988, specifically concerning the entry tax on a vehicle purchased in one state but registered in another.

The vehicle was purchased on 26th December 2009, and summons were issued to the respondent on 11th July 2012, almost three years later.

The vehicle was purchased from Uttar Pradesh and registered in Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

It indicates that the court may deviate from a literal interpretation of a law's wording if that interpretation leads to an illogical or inconsistent result.

Attached File : 40_3286_21399_2020_36_8_25651_order_21_jan_2021.pdf

downloaded 326 times