1993 (2) TMI 274 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the three year time prescribed under section 22 of the Act is directory and is intended to cover the overtaking of the jurisdiction by the concerned authority? Held that - Appeal dismissed. The application for rectification was made by the State Government on March 9, 1973. The application having been made beyond the period of three years the question of applicability of section 22 did not arise. The learned counsel for the State Government has, however, contended that the dates mentioned in the judgment of the High Court are not correct. According to the learned counsel the application for rectification was made on March 9, 1972 and not on March 9, 1973. We have no material before us to support the factual contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Even otherwise the amount involved is very small and the assessment relates to the year 1964-65.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948

In this case, the Supreme Court dealt with the interpretation of Section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The revising authority had initially dismissed the revision petition of the assessee, but later allowed it after rectification. Subsequently, the State Government filed an application for rectification beyond the three-year period allowed under Section 22. The High Court held that the revising authority had no jurisdiction to revise the order after three years, leading to the State Government's appeal.

The main issue before the court was whether the three-year time limit prescribed under Section 22 of the Act is mandatory or directory and whether the revising authority can rectify an order after the expiration of the three-year period.

The appellant argued that once an application is filed within the three-year period, the deciding authority can pass an order even after the expiry of the three-year period. However, the High Court had interpreted Section 22 to require the rectification order to be passed within three years of the original order.

The court noted that Section 22 was later amended to include a proviso allowing disposal of applications even beyond the three-year period if the application was made within that time frame. Although the case pertained to the period before the amendment, the court found in favor of the State based on the amendment.

The State Government contended that the dates mentioned in the High Court judgment were incorrect, stating that the application for rectification was made in 1972, not 1973. However, lacking evidence to support this claim and considering the trivial amount involved in the assessment, the court declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal without costs.