TMI Blog1954 (4) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the applicant from the Sales Tax Officer on the 23rd April, 1952. Prior to this, an application for a certified copy of the order was made by the applicant on the 20th March, 1952, and the copy was received by him on the 7th May, 1952. The application for reference was filed on the 12th May, 1952. This applica- tion was dismissed as filed on the 63rd day from the 10th March, 1952, while the limitation under section 23(1) of the Act was 60 days from the passing of the order. 3.. This Court has jurisdiction to require the Board to make a reference if it is not satisfied that the refusal was justified. If the application for reference was barred by time, the Board was bound to dismiss it and its refusal to state the case was justified. 4.. We have, therefore heard the parties on the preliminary question of limitation and we hold that the order of the Board of Revenue rejecting the application as barred by time was not justified. The order as it stands is clearly unsupportable. According to the Board the limitation in the instant case expired on the 9th May, 1952, even though no date was fixed for delivery of the order and even though intimation of the order had not been give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In reply, the Additional Government Pleader contented himself merely with relying on Doma Sao v. State of Bihar(5). He made no at- tempt to show that the decisions relied on by his opponent were not correctly decided or were distinguishable or were inapplicable. He made no attempt to meet the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant based on section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. This is hardly a satisfactory presentation of the case on behalf of the State. 7.. In Doma Sao v. State of Bihar(5), it was held that in the absence of a provision similar to section 67-A of the Income-tax Act, time requisite for obtaining a copy could not be excluded in computing the period of limitation for an application for reference to High Court. It did not consider the applicability of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, nor did it consider the first submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant about the interpretation of the expression "passing of the order". It is, therefore, of little assistance in the instant case. 8.. The Sales Tax Act is undoubtedly a local law. Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act provides that the provisions of section 3 of the Act shall apply whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of limitation. It was held in Amritsar Sugar Mill Co., Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax(2), that a certified copy of the order of the Sales Tax Authority refusing to make a reference was necessary. In Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Co., Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax(3) time for obtaining a copy of the order was excluded under section 12 because of the decision in Amritsar Sugar Mill Co., Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax(2). 11.. In Dropadi v. Hiralal(4) the question was of the exclusion under section 12 (2) of the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order appealed from in computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1907. It was held that the Act was a special law within the meaning of section 29 of the Limita- tion Act which made the provisions of sections 3, 4, 9 to 18 and 22 applicable to special and local laws. It was, therefore, held that sec- tion 12 (2) was applicable. 12.. By adding section 67-A by the Amending Act, XXII of 1930, a provision similar to that of section 12 (2) of the Limitation Act has been expressly made applicable to applications under section 66 of the Income-tax Act. Prior to this, section 29(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... think it would be the duty of the judge in such a case to point out to the jury that, though 'a licence granted by the Admiralty' would normally connote a written instru- ment, it need not of necessity bear that meaning if it were capable of another meaning and if so to read it would make the carrying out of urgent repairs in war-time impossible without committing a breach of the order. After all, common sense must apply to construction, and if there are two possible meanings of the word the one which makes sense of the order and renders its working practically possible should be given." 15.. It cannot be the intention of the Legislature that the autho- rity signing an order in the absence of a party should not communicate its decision to him and that the right of appeal should depend on the sweet-will of the authority or its officials. In The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Gopisetti Narayanaswami Naidu Garu(6), it was held that the "date of the decision" for the purpose of limitation was the date when the decision was passed and the decision could not be said (1) (1930) A.I.R. 1930 Pat. 14. (4) [1950] 2 K.B. 16, 29-30. (2) (1912) I.L.R. 34 All. 496. (5) [1951] A.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... questions 1 and 2 are really one question. 19.. The facts as appearing from the record are: Before the com- mencement of the Act, the assessee was carrying on business of buying and selling cotton, cotton seed and other articles, ginning cotton and manufacture of edible oils. His turnover as stated in the application (1) (1883) I.L.R. 6 Mad. 189. (6) (1930) A.I.R. 1930 Pat. 14. (2) (1889) I.L.R. 12 Mad. 1. (7) [1953] 4 S.T.C. 252. (3) (1930) I.L.R. 53 Mad. 491. (8) [1953] 4 S.T.C. 289. (4) [1951] 19 I.T.R. 402. (9) [1953] 4 S.T.C. 336. (5) [1952] 3 S.T.C. 453. (10) [1946] 1 S.T.C. 145. for registration was over 4 lakhs for the year preceding the commence- ment of the Act and his taxable turnover was nil. On the 30th June, 1947, he was granted a certificate of registration under section 8 (3) of the Act in which it was stated that his purchases of ginned and unginned cotton, cotton seed, other oil seeds, oil cakes, all edible oils, machinery, lubricating oils, gunnies, hessian, gin stores whether for manufacture of all kinds of oil or for resale were exempt from payment of sales tax. 20.. On the 23rd February, 1948, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax issued a notice to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following questions of law do arise out of the order dated the 10th March, 1952. (i) Whether the order dated the 1st March, 1948, was passed in exercise of the power of review under section 22 (6). (2) Whether the authority which passed the order had power to review the order of the Sales Tax Officer granting a registration certificate. (3) Whether the order dated the 1st March, 1948, is according to law. (4) Whether the applicant's failure to appeal against this order precludes consideration of any of the above 3 questions by the Board of Revenue. 24.. Rule 67 empowers the Commissioner to delegate the power to register a dealer and the power to cancel registration to the Sales Tax Officer. Section 22 (6) empowers any person appointed under section 3 to review any order passed by him. Apparently, therefore, the Assist- ant Commissioner, Sales Tax, had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated the 1st March, 1948, reviewing the order of the Sales Tax Officer grant- ing the certificate and to cancel that certificate. This important ques- tion of law is not considered by the Board of Revenue. Similarly, the question whether on the facts stated by the Board the applicant was entitled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
