1953 (4) TMI 18 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Refusal by Sales Tax Tribunal to refer questions of law to High Court under Section 30(1) of Saurashtra Sales Tax Ordinance, 1950.
2. Computation of the period of limitation for making an application to refer a case to the High Court under Section 30(1) of the Sales Tax Ordinance.
3. Interpretation of when an order is deemed to be passed or made for the purpose of limitation calculation.
4. Comparison of provisions in different statutes for computation of the period of limitation.

Analysis:

1. The case involves a dispute regarding the refusal of the Sales Tax Tribunal to refer questions of law to the High Court under Section 30(1) of the Saurashtra Sales Tax Ordinance, 1950. The Commissioner of Sales Tax applied to the Tribunal for a reference, but it was dismissed on the grounds of being barred by limitation. The Tribunal's decision was based on the application being made after the prescribed sixty-day period had expired. The Commissioner challenged this refusal by the Tribunal.

2. The main contention in this case was the computation of the period of limitation for making an application to refer a case to the High Court under Section 30(1) of the Sales Tax Ordinance. The dispute arose from the interpretation of when the order was deemed to be passed. The Commissioner argued that the order was communicated on 1st July, 1952, and hence the application made on 23rd August, 1952, was within the sixty-day period. On the other hand, the opponent argued that the order was pronounced on the same day as the hearing, and the Commissioner had notice of the decision.

3. The interpretation of when an order is deemed to be passed or made for the purpose of limitation calculation was crucial in this case. The learned Advocate-General relied on precedents to argue that a decision is passed when it is pronounced or published in a manner that parties affected have a reasonable opportunity to know its contents. The argument was supported by cases like Muthiah Chettiar v. Income-tax Commissioner, Madras, emphasizing that limitation should not begin until the party is aware of the adverse decision.

4. A comparison of provisions in different statutes for the computation of the period of limitation was also discussed. The opponent contended that since Section 30(1) of the Saurashtra Sales Tax Ordinance did not explicitly mention computation from the date of notice to the parties, it should not be a factor in calculating the limitation period. However, the court emphasized that the determination of when an order is deemed to be made cannot be decided by comparing provisions from other statutes.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the application, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the Tribunal to consider the Commissioner's application on its merits. The decision was based on the interpretation of when the order was deemed to be passed for the purpose of calculating the limitation period, emphasizing the importance of providing parties with a reasonable opportunity to know the contents of the decision before limitation begins.