A legal maxim or legal phrase elucidates or expounds a legal

LEGAL MAXIMS AND PHRASES

Introduction:

A legal maxim or legal phrase elucidates or expounds a legal principle,

proposition or concept. There are many legal maxims, which are commonly used.

This chapter selectively seeks to explain some maxims/phrases, which are

relevant to tax context. An attempt is made to not only state the legal principle

signified by a maxim/phrase but its application in case laws is also stated to

enable readers to apply it in appropriate situations in GST.

Alph

abet

Legal

maxim/phrase

Legal principle/concept Case law reference

Ab initio

From the beginning or

inception. From

from the first act.

Dilip Kumar

Mukherjee Vs.

Commercial Tax

Officer &Ors, AIR

1965 Cal 498 :

MANU/WB/0104

/1965

Actio Personalis

Moritur Cum

Persona

A personal right of action

dies with the person

C.P.Kandaswamy &

Ors Vs. Mariappa

Stores &Ors.,

MANU/TN/0141/

1974

Actus Curiae

Neminem Gravabit

An Act of the Court shall

prejudice no man

1. Sree Balaji Nagar

Residential

Association vs.

State of Tamil Nadu

2015 (3) SCC 353;

MANU/SC/0794/2

014.

2. Anil Rai Vs. State

of Bihar, 2009 (233)

ELT 13 (SC)

Actus Non

FacitReum Nisi

Mens Sit Rea

The intent and act must both

concur to constitute the crime

1. Commissioner,

Trade Tax U.P.,

Lucknow

Vs. Project

Technologist Pvt.

Ltd.,

MANU/UP/1335/

2012 = 2012 (48)

VST406(All).

2. UOI Vs. Ganesh

Das Bhojraj 2000

(116) ELT 431 (SC)

Ad hoc

For this.

For this special purpose.

Addison & Co. Ltd.,

Madras

Vs.Collector of

Central Excise,

Madras 1997 (91)

ELT 532 (S.C.) =

MANU/SC/1211/

1997

Ad valorem

To the value or based on

value.

Ganesh Oil Mills

Ltd. and Ors.

Vs. State of J and K

and Ors.

MANU/JK/0275/2

004

Allegans Contraria

Non Est Audiendus

He is not be heard who

alleges things contradictory

to each other.

Sikkim Manipal

University Vs. State

of Sikkim

MANU/SI/0071/20

14 = 2014 (369) ITR

567 (Sikkim).

Audi Alterem Partem

No man shall be condemned

unheard.

1. Hari Nivas Gupta

Vs. The State of

Bihar and Ors.

MANU/BH/0314/

2015

2. Shreematha

Precision

Components Vs.

Commr. Of C.Ex.,

Bangalore 2015

(325) ELT 529 (Kar)

Abundans cautela

non nocet

Abundant or extreme caution

does no harm.

George Vs. George,

MANU/KE/0431/2

010

Actori incumbit onus

probandi

The burden of proof lies on

the plaintiff

Dr. Indra Raja and

Dr. Paten Raja Vs.

John

Yesurethinamalias

Durai,

MANU/TN/4369/

2011

Actus Reus

A guilty deed or act 1. Additional

Commissioner of

Income Tax and

Anr. Vs.

Dargapandarinath

Tuljayya& Co.

MANU/AP/0176/

1976.

2. Vinod Solanki vs.

UOI, 2009 (233) ELT

157 (SC)

Contemporanea

Expositio Est Optima

Et Fortissimo In Lege

Contemporaneous exposition

or interpretation is regarded

in law as the best and

strongest (most prevailing).

The best and surest mode of

construing an instrument is to

read it in the sense which

would have been applied

when it was drawn up

Employees' State

Insurance

Corporation,

Hyderabad Vs.

Andhra Pradesh

Paper Mills Ltd.,

Rajahmundry

MANU/AP/0126/

1978 = AIR 1978 AP

18.

Cuilibet in Sua Arte

Perito Est

Credendum

Credence should be given to

one skilled in his peculiar

profession. Credit is to be

given to any one skilled in his

own art or profession.

Cursus curiae estlex

curiae

The practice of this Court is

the law of the Court. The

course of the Court (that is,

the course of procedure or

practice) is the law of the

Court.

Collector of Central

Excise, Madras Vs.

Standard Motor

Products and Ors,

MANU/SC/0114/1

989 = AIR 1989 SC

1298 = 1989(41) ELT

617 (SC)

De Facto

Existing in actuality, especiall

y when contrary to or not esta

blished by law.

Assistant Collector

of Central Excise,

Calcutta Division

Vs.National

Tobacco Co. of

India Ltd. 1978 (2)

ELT 416 (S.C.) =

MANU/SC/0377/1

972

De Minimis Non

Curat Lex

The law does not concern

itself with trifles

1. State of Bihar and

Ors. Vs. Harihar

Prasad Debuka and

Ors

MANU/SC/0533/1

989 = AIR 1989 SC

1119 = 1989 (73)

STC 353 (SC)

2. Foods, Fats

&Fertilisers Ltd..,

Vs. Commissioner

of C.Ex. Guntur,

2011 (22) STR 484

(TRI-Bang.)

Delegatus non potest

delegare

A delegate himself cannot

delegate. A delegated power

cannot be further delegated.

1. Gwalior Rayon

Silk Mfg. (Wvg.)

Co. Ltd.Vs. The

Asstt.

Commissioner of

Sales Tax and Ors.

MANU/SC/0361/1

973 = AIR 1974 SC

1660 = 1974 (2) SCR

879 = 2002-TIOL-

1420-SC-CT-LB.

2. Valvoline

Cummins Limited

Vs DCIT & Ors,

2008-TIOL-347-HC-

DEL-IT.

Ejusdem Generis

Of the same class, or kind 1. The State of

Karnataka

Vs.

Cognizant

Technology

Solutions India

Private Limited

MANU/KA/2399/

2016.

2. Mega Enterprises

Vs CCE&C, 2015-

TIOL-1142-

CESTAT-MUM

Ex Post Facto

After the fact. Durga Works

Vs. Assistant

Collector of

Central Excise,

MANU/KA/0270

/1991

Expressio Unius

Est

Exclusio Alterius

Express mention of one thing

excludes others. The special

mention of one thing operates

as the exclusion of things

differing from it.

1. Ramdev Food

Products Pvt Ltd.,

Vs. State of Gujarat

MANU/SC/0286/

2015 = AIR 2015 SC

1742 = 2015 (6) SCC

439.

2. DHL Lemuir

Logistics

Pvt.Limited Vs

CCE, 2012-TIOL-

705-CESTAT-MUM

Falsus in Uno Falsus

in Omnibus

False in one aspect is false in

all respects. False in one

thing, false in all.

1. Mohammed

Razhur Rehaman

and Ors.

Vs. State of

Karnataka

MANU/KA/1470/

2016 =

2016(5)Kar.LJ15

2. G.SasikalaVs ITO,

2015-TIOL-823-

ITAT-Mad.

Generalia Specialibus

non derogant

General things do not

derogate special things.

General statements or

provisions do not derogate

from special statements or

provisions.

1. Commissioner of

Income Tax, Patiala

& Ors. Vs.

Shahzada Nand&

Sons &Ors,

MANU/SC/0113/1

966= AIR 1966 SC

1342 = 1966 (60) ITR

392 (SC).

2. CTO Vs Binani

Cements Ltd &Anr,

2014-TIOL-15-SC-

CT.

Habeas Corpus

You have the body.

A writ (court order) that com

mands an individual or a gov

ernment official who has

restrained

another to produce the prison

er at a designated time and pl

ace so that the court can deter

mine the legality of custody a

nddecide whether

to order the prisoner's

release.

1. Purshottam

Govindji Halaivas.

Shree B.M.Desai,

Additional

Collector of

Bombay and Ors.

AIR 1956 SC 20 =

MANU/SC/0017/

1955

2. UOI Vs. Paul

Manickam, 2003

(162) ELT 6 (SC)

Ignorantia Facti

Excusat – Ignorantia

Juris Non Excusat

Ignorance of facts may be

excused but not ignorance of

law.

1. S.A.Qadir Vs. The

Union of India and

Ors.,MANU/RH/0

695/2000.

2. Ajai Kumar

Agnihotri & Anr Vs

CCE, 2013-TIOL-

1049-CESTAT-DEL

Impotentia Excusat

Legem

Impossibility excuses the law.

Inability excuses the non-

observance of the law.

1. Narmada Bachao

Andolan Vs. State

of Madhya Pradesh

and Anr.

MANU/SC/0599/2

011 =

AIR2011SC1989

2. Steel Authority of

India Ltd., Vs.

Commissioner of

C.EX., Coimbatore

2004 (177) ELT 1128

(TRI-Chennai)

In absentia

"In absence," or more fully, in 1. D. Velayutham

one's absence. Vs. State

MANU/SC/0249

/2015

2. Webel SL-

Energy System

Ltd., Vs. UOI 2010

(257) ELT 532

(CAL.)

Ipse Dixit

He himself said it. Kirloskar Brothers

Ltd. Vs.

Commissioner of

Central Excise,

Pune, 2005 (181)

ELT 299 (S.C.) =

MANU/SC/0182/

2005

Leges Posteriores

Priores Contrarias

Abrogant

Later laws repeal earlier laws

inconsistent therewith.

Commissioner of

Income Tax Vs.

Common Wealth

Trust (I) Ltd.,

MANU/KE/0583/2

004 = 2004 (189)

CTR(Ker)393

Lex Non Cogit Ad

Impossiblia

The law does not compel a

person to do that which he

cannot possibly perform. The

law does not compel the

performance of what is

impossible.

1. Industrial

Finance

Corporation of

India Ltd. Vs. The

Cannanore

Spinning &

Weaving Mills Ltd.

and Ors.

MANU/SC/0317/2

002

= AIR 2002 SC

1841= [2002]2 SCR

1093.

2. Jindal Steel and

Power Limited Vs

CCE, 2015-TIOL-

1162-CESTAT-DEL.

Lex Posterior Deroga

t Priori

A later law repeals an earlier

law.

Central

Warehousing

A later statute derogates from

a prior.

Corporation Vs.

Fortpoint

Automotive Pvt.

Ltd.,

MANU/MH/1493/

2009 =

2010(1)MhLJ658 =

2010(1)BomCR560

Lexspecialis derogate

legigenerali

Special law repeals general

laws.

Radha Mohan

Maheshwari

Vs.D.C.I.T – ITAT

Jaipur

MANU/IJ/0092/20

Locus Standi

The right of a

party to appear and be heard

before a court.

1. BOC India Ltd.

Vs. State of

Jharkhand and Ors.,

2009 (237) ELT 7

(SC) =

MANU/SC/0351/2

009

2. Oswal Chemicals

& Fertilizers Ltd.,

Vs. Commissioner

of C.Ex., Bolpur

2015 (318) ELT 617

(SC)

Mandamus

A writ or order that is issued

from a court of superior juris

diction that commands an inf

erior tribunal/court

to perform,

or refrain from performing, a

particular act, the performanc

e of which is required by law

as an obligation.

Shenoy and Co.,

Bangalore and Ors.

Vs.

Commercial Tax Off

icer, Circle II,

Bangalore and Ors. ,

AIR 1985 SC 621 =

MANU/SC/0255/1

985.

Modus Operandi

Method of working. Assistant

Commercial Taxes

Officer

Vs.Kansai Nerolac

Paints Ltd, 2015

(321) ELT 13 (S.C.) =

MANU/SC/0259/

2010

Mutatis Mutandis

The necessary changes. 1. Eastern Electrics

Vs. The State of

Tamil

Nadu, MANU/TN

/1373/2008

2. Sodexo SVC India

Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State

of Maharashtra,

2016 (331) ELT 23

(SC)

Nemo Debet Esse

Judex in Propria Sua

Causa

No man can be judge in his

own case. No one ought to be

a judge in his own cause.

1. Rajesh Kumar

and Ors. Vs. D.

Commissioner of

Income Tax and

Ors.

MANU/SC/4779/2

006= AIR 2007 SC

181 = [2006] Supp

(8) SCR 284

2. Deo Ispat Alloys

Limited Vs CCT,

2014-TIOL-1797-

HC-ORRISA-VAT

Nemo Debet

BisVexari Pro Una

Et Eadem Causa

A man shall not be vexed

twice for one and the same

cause

1. Omax

Engineering

Works Vs. State of

Haryana and

Ors., MANU/PH/0

459/2016

2. Commr. Of C.E.,

Nagpur Vs. Shree

Baidyanath

Ayurved Bhawan

Ltd., 2009 (237) ELT

225 (SC)

Nemobis punitur

poreo dem delicto

No one can be punished

twice for the same crime or

offence

Omax Engineering

Works Vs. State of

Haryana and

Ors., MANU/PH/0

459/2016

Nemopunitur pro

alieno delicto

No one is to be punished for

the crime or wrong of another

The District

Collector,

Dharmapuri Vs.

Tmt. T.V. Kasturi,

MANU/TN/0658/

2014

Non Obstante

Notwithstanding (any statut

e to the contrary)

1. Union of India

(UOI) and Ors.

Vs. SICOM Ltd.

and Anr., 2009 (233)

ELT 433 (S.C.) =

MANU/SC/8377/

2008

2. Commissioner of

C.Ex., Vs. Dalmia

Cement (Bharat)

Ltd., 2015 (323) ELT

647 (SC)

Noscitur a Sociis

The meaning of a doubtful

word may be ascertained by

reference to the meaning of

words associated with it.

M/s. Rohit Pulp

and Paper Mills

Ltd.Vs. Collector of

Central Excise,

Baroda,

MANU/SC/0186/1

991 = 1990 (47) ELT

491 (S.C.)= AIR

1991 SC 754

Nova Constitutio

Futuris Formam

Imponere Debet, Non

Praeteritis

A new law ought to be

prospective and not

retrospective, in operation.

1. Shanti

Conductors (P) Ltd.

and Ors. Vs. Assam

State Electricity

Board and Ors.,

MANU/SC/0972/2

016

2. MRF Ltd., Vs.

Assisstant

Commissioner

(Assessment) Sales

Tax, 2006 (206) ELT

6 (SC)

Nullus Commodum

No man can take advantage Naveen Kumar

Capere Potest De

Injuria Sua Propria

of his own wrong. Sharma Vs. State of

Haryana and Ors.

MANU/PH/3846/

2015

Obiter Dicta

Remarks of a judge which are

not necessary to reaching a d

ecision, but are made as

comments,

illustrations or thoughts.

Naturalle Health

Products (P) Ltd.

Vs.Collector of

Central Excise,

2003 (158) ELT

257 (S.C.) =

MANU/SC/0912

/2003

Pari Materia

Of the same matter; on the sa

me subject

Collector of Central

Excise Vs Re -

Rolling Mills,

1997(94) ELT 8

(S.C.) =

MANU/SC/1430/

1998

Per Incuriam

By Mistake Commissioner of

Central Excise

Vs. Medico Labs

and Anr., 2004

(173) ELT

117(Guj.) =

MANU/GJ/0635

/2004

Qui Facit Per Alium

Facit Per Se

He who acts by or through

another, acts for himself.

A person who does a thing

through the instrumentality

of another, is held as having

done it himself.

1. Commissioner of

Income Tax

Vs.Amman Steel &

Allied Industries,

MANU/TN/2319/

2015 = 2015 (377)

ITR 568 (Mad).

2. Indian Sugar and

General Engg.

Corpn. Vs. Collector

of Cus., 1993 (68)

ELT 832 (Tri-Del)

Quid pro quo

What for what or Something f

or something.

Commissioner of

Central Excise,

Lucknow, U.P.

Vs. Chhata Sugar

Co. Ltd. 2004 (165)

ELT 369 (S.C.) =

MANU/SC/0189/2

004

Quo Warranto

An order issued by authority

of the king.

A legal proceeding during w

hich an individual's right to h

old an office or government’s

privilege is challenged.

1. Dr .D .K

.Belsarevs . Nagpur

University

MANU/MH/0351/

1980 :

1980(82)BomLR494

2. L. Chandra

Kumar Vs. UOI

1997 (92) ELT 318

(SC)

Ratio Decidendi

The reason or rationale for th

e decision by Court.

The Commissioner

Central Excise and

S.T., Large

Taxpayer Unit vs.

ABB Limited, GIDC

MANU/KA/0794/

2011 = 2011 (44)

VST 1 (Karn)

Res Integra

An entire thing; an entirely ne

w or untouched matter.

Commnr. of

Central Excise,

Vadodara Vs.

Gujarat State

Fertilizers and

Chem. Ltd.

MANU/SC/7776/2

008 = (2008)15 SCC

Res Ipsa Loquitur

The thing speaks for itself 1. Rahul and

Ors. Vs. State of

Maharashtra and

Ors.

MANU/MH/0861/

2016

2. T. Shankar

Prasad Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh

2004 (164) ELT 143

(SC)

Res Judicata

A thing adjudged. West Coast Paper

Mills

Vs. Superintendent

Central Excise and

Ors., 1984 (16) ELT

91 (Kar.) =

MANU/KA/0144/

1971

Sub Silentio

Under silence; without any n

otice being taken

1. Ajay Gandhi and

Anr. Vs. B. Singh

and Ors. AIR 2004

SC 1391 =

2004(167)ELT257(S.

C.) =

MANU/SC/0012/2

004

2. State of

Maharashtra Vs.

Subhash Arjundas

Kataria, 2012 (275)

ELT 289 (SC)

Suppressio Veri

Suggestio Falsi

Concealment of truth or a

statement of falsehood

1. Dilip N Shroff

Karta of N.D.Shroff

Vs. Joint

Commissioner of

Income Tax, Special

Range Mumbai

&Anr.,

MANU/SC/3182/

2007 = 2007 (291)

ITR 519 (SC) = 2007

(7) SCR 499

2. ITC Ltd., Vs.

M.K.Chipkar and

Others, 1985 (19)

ELT 373 (Bom.)

Ubi Jus IbiRemedium

There is no wrong without a

remedy. Wherever there is a

right there is a remedy.

1. Kalpana Yogesh

Dhagat Vs. Reliance

Industries Limited

MANU/GJ/2165/2

016

2. Mithilesh Kumari

Vs. Prem Behari

Khare 1989 (40) ELT

257 (SC)

Ubi Non Est

Principalis Non

Potest Esse

Accessorius

Where there is no principal

there is no accessory.

Pratibha Processors

Vs. UOI, 1996 (88)

ELT 12 (SC)

Vigilantibus et non d

ormientibus jura sub

veniunt

Law aids the vigilant and not

the dormant or laws

aid/assist those who are

vigilant, not those who sleep

upon/over their rights.

a. Pushpammal Vs.

Jayavelu Gounder

(Died), Krishna

Gounder (Died) and

Ors.

MANU/TN/3711/

2010.

b. Bharat Petroleum

Corpn. Ltd Vs.

CC&CE, 2016(340)

ELT 553 (T) =

MANU/CH/0060/

2016

Volenti Non Fit

Injuria

To the consenting, no injury i

s done.

Sarasamma and

Ors. Vs. G.

Pandurangan and

Ors.

MANU/TN/0763/

2016 = (2016) 3 MLJ

286

Note: There are many legal maxims, which are quite often used in any legal

proceedings. The above is only an illustrative list of few important maxims. The

participants are encouraged to read and understand more such maxims from

authoritative texts and judicial decisions and use it in appropriate proceedings.