1952 (2) TMI 19 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Application under Section 11(2)(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act filed beyond the limitation period. Interpretation of the benefit of Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act in the absence of a specific provision in the Sales Tax Act. Applicability of general provisions of the Limitation Act to a special or local law. Requirement of filing a certified copy of the order refusing to state a case to the High Court under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application under Section 11(2)(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, filed after the prescribed limitation period. The central issue revolves around whether the applicant can avail the benefit of Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act in the absence of a specific provision in the Sales Tax Act regarding the exclusion of time for obtaining a copy of the order. The contention raised by the learned counsel is that Section 29(2)(a) of the Indian Limitation Act, when read in conjunction with the U.P. Sales Tax Act, allows for the application of Section 12 to exclude the time required for obtaining the order copy.

The judgment delves into the applicability of general provisions of the Limitation Act to special or local laws. Citing a Full Bench decision in the case of Dropadi v. Hira Lal, it was established that while special laws maintain their prescribed periods, the general provisions of the Limitation Act can govern the computation of these periods. This principle was reinforced by a Bench decision in the case of Messrs. Radha Kishan Bhagwan Din v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, emphasizing the necessity of filing a certified copy of the order with the application under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act.

Moreover, the judgment draws parallels with cases under the Income-tax Act, highlighting how despite the absence of specific provisions for excluding time for obtaining order copies, the benefit of Section 12 of the Limitation Act was extended to applicants. Reference to the Patna High Court decision in Mohan Lal Hardeo Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax further solidified the equitable application of the Limitation Act's general provisions to special acts, aligning with the Full Bench decision in Dropadi v. Hira Lal.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the applicant in the present case should be entitled to the benefit of Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act. By virtue of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, the time required for obtaining the order copy should be excluded in computing the limitation period for the application under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the Court held that the application was within the permissible time frame, thereby allowing the case to proceed.