Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 1968 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1968 (4) TMI 67 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues:
1. Point of limitation raised regarding the application for reference of certain points of law to the High Court under section 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act.
2. Interpretation of section 12 of the Limitation Act in relation to exclusion of time for obtaining a copy of the judgment.
3. Determination of whether an application for reference falls under the scope of "or for revision" in sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Limitation Act.
4. Analysis of the scheme of section 20 of the Act and the process of revision and reference to the High Court.
5. Examination of the Board of Revenue's decision to refuse the reference and the subsequent application to the High Court under section 21(2).

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with a point of limitation raised in the application for reference to the High Court under section 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. The timeline of events, including the order by the Board of Revenue, communication of the order, and the application for reference, was crucial in determining the application's timeliness.

2. The interpretation of section 12 of the Limitation Act was central to the analysis. The debate focused on whether the time for obtaining a copy of the judgment could be excluded in calculating the limitation period for making an application under section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. The addition of "or for revision" in the 1963 Limitation Act was a key factor in this interpretation.

3. The judgment delved into whether an application for reference could be considered within the scope of "or for revision" in sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Limitation Act. The argument centered on the widened scope of the provision and whether it encompassed applications for reference to the High Court following a revision case.

4. The analysis extended to the scheme of section 20 of the Act, outlining the process of revision by the Commissioner or the Board of Revenue. The distinction between a revision case and an application for reference was crucial in determining the applicability of the exclusion of time for obtaining a copy of the judgment.

5. Lastly, the judgment scrutinized the Board of Revenue's decision to refuse the reference and the subsequent application made to the High Court under section 21(2). The court upheld the Board's decision on the limitation issue, leading to the discharge of the rule on the grounds of limitation, without making any order as to costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates