CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · Interpretation of Statutes
A statute says: 'A notice under this Act may be served by registered post.' The department sends a notice by ordinary speed post, which the assessee admits receiving on time. The assessee argues the notice is invalid. Under the distinction between mandatory and directory provisions, which position is most appropriate?
The notice is valid. The word 'may' is ordinarily enabling or directory rather than mandatory, and the purpose of service is met because the assessee admits timely receipt. A departure from the suggested mode of service therefore does not make the notice invalid.
- AThe notice is invalid because 'may' always creates a mandatory requirement for the mode stated
- BThe notice is invalid because every procedural provision is mandatory
- CThe notice is valid only if the assessee pays a penalty
- DThe word 'may' is generally directory or enabling, so a different mode that achieves actual service need not make the notice invalidCorrect
Explanation
'May' is ordinarily permissive or directory, not mandatory. Where actual receipt is admitted, the purpose of the provision (giving notice) is fulfilled, so non-compliance with the exact mode is not fatal. Option A wrongly treats 'may' as imperative.
Did you get it right without looking?
One question tells you little. A timed set on Interpretation of Statutes shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.
More Interpretation of Statutes questions
- A municipal by-law states: 'No person shall bring any vehicle into the Central Park.' Ravi, a municipal worker, drives an ambulance into the…
- A statute lists 'cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and other animals' as animals that may not be grazed on a common land. Ravi grazes a herd of ele…
- A Central Act, effective from a notified date, empowers the Government to make rules. The Act says nothing about when it comes into operatio…
- A statute says: "A tenant who fails to pay rent for two consecutive months shall be liable to eviction." Meera, a tenant, missed rent for on…
- A newly enacted Act, passed in 2025, repeals an earlier Act of 2010 and re-enacts some of its provisions. Rohan was prosecuted under the 201…
- Mehta & Co. LLP was registered with a partner, Kavita, as one of its designated partners. A dispute arises as to whether a clause in the LLP…