Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2020 (2) TMI 655

..... t of an application under section 245C - HELD THAT:- A perusal of sub-section (6B) of Section 245D of the Act makes it amply clear that any mistake apparent from the record in the order passed by the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of Section 245D of the Act may be rectified at any time within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed or at any time within a period of six months from the end of the month in which an application for rectification has been made by the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the applicant, as the case may be. Six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, expired on 31st May, 2017. Admittedly, the application under Section 245D(6B) of the Act was filed by the petitioner on 30.06.2017 which was barred by limitation as provided under sub-section (6B) thereof. Still further, even if the argument advanced by the petitioner that the limitation of six months for entertaining application under Section 245D(6B) of the Act would start running from the date the order was served on the petitioner, is considered, there is nothing to show as to on which date in the month of December, 2016 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... as to say that the application was within the period of limitation. However, the Settlement Commission vide order impugned herein has dismissed the application for rectification on the ground that the same is barred by limitation, which is challenged herein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order under Section 245C of the Act was passed on 28.11.2016 but it was served upon the petitioner in the month of December, 2016, hence, the limitation of six months as provided under Clause (a) of Section 245D(6B) read with the first proviso contained therein, would expire on 30.06.2017 and therefore, the application for rectification filed on 30.06.2017 was well within the limitation. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that for the purposes of Section 245D(6B) of the Act, the limitation ought to have been counted from the date of service of the order and not from the date of the order itself. In this context, he has placed heavy reliance upon the two judgments of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500 (Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another) and (2003) 6 SCC 186 (D. Saibaba vs. Bar Council of India and another). Relian .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ectified at any time within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed or at any time within a period of six months from the end of the month in which an application for rectification has been made by the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the applicant, as the case may be. The first proviso to subsection (6B) further creates an embargo for making any such application for rectification after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which an order under sub-section (4) is passed by the Settlement Commission. In the present case, the order under sub-section (4) of Section 245D was passed by the Settlement Commission on 28.11.2016. Thus, six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, expired on 31st May, 2017. Admittedly, the application under Section 245D(6B) of the Act was filed by the petitioner on 30.06.2017 which was barred by limitation as provided under sub-section (6B) thereof. 8. Still further, even if the argument advanced by the petitioner that the limitation of six months for entertaining application under Section 245D(6B) of the Act would start running from the date the order was served on th .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... igation is placed on the Collector to communicate the award immediately to the person concerned. It is significant that the section requires the Collector to give notice of the award immediately after making it. This provision lends support to the view which we have taken about the construction of the expression "from the date of the Collector's award" in the proviso to Section 18. It is because communication of the order is regarded by the Legislature as necessary that Section 12(2) has imposed an obligation on the Collector and if the relevant clause in the proviso is read in the light of this statutory requirement it tends to show that the literal and mechanical construction of the said clause would be wholly inappropriate. It would indeed be a very curious result that the failure of the Collector to discharge his obligation under Section 12(2) should directly tend to make ineffective the right of the party to make an application under Section 18, and this result could not possibly have been intended by the legislature. However, in the present case, under sub-section (6B) of Section 245D of the Act, there is no such requirement expressly provided for communication .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||