1955 (11) TMI 30 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the period of 60 days for making an application under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act can exclude the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order under sub-section (3) of section 10.
2. Applicability of section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act to applications under the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
3. Interpretation of section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act in relation to special or local laws.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Exclusion of Time for Obtaining Copy of Order:
The primary issue was whether, in computing the period of 60 days within which an application must be made under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, an assessee is entitled to exclude the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order under sub-section (3) of section 10. The court noted that the U.P. Sales Tax Act itself did not contain any provision making the Indian Limitation Act applicable in computing the period of limitation prescribed under that Act. However, section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act was applicable, which means that the period of limitation prescribed by the U.P. Sales Tax Act must be computed by applying the provisions contained in sections 4, 9 to 18, and 22 of the Indian Limitation Act.

2. Applicability of Section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act:
The court examined whether the benefit provided by sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act could be extended to the applicants. Sub-section (2) of section 12 states that in computing the period of limitation for an appeal, an application for leave to appeal, and an application for review of judgment, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence, or order shall be excluded. The court determined that the application under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was not an appeal, an application for leave to appeal, or an application for review of judgment. Therefore, on the plain language of sub-section (2) of section 12, the applicants were not entitled to exclude the period requisite for obtaining the copy of the order in computing the period of 60 days.

3. Interpretation of Section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act:
The court discussed the argument that section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act should be interpreted to include the exclusion of time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order for any suit, appeal, or application under a special or local law. The court rejected this argument, stating that the words "any suit, appeal, or application" in section 29 were not meant to enlarge the scope of sub-section (2) of section 12 but merely to describe the nature of proceedings to which sections 4, 9 to 18, and 22 are to be applied. The court emphasized that section 29 was intended to make these provisions applicable when computing the period of limitation under a special or local law in the same manner as they would be applicable under the general law governed by the Indian Limitation Act.

The court also referred to various precedents and held that the interpretation urged by the applicants would lead to unintended and potentially absurd results. For instance, the court noted that if section 29 were interpreted to apply section 12(2) to all applications under special or local laws, it would lead to inconsistencies, such as applying section 12(2) to applications for execution under the U.P. Tenancy Act, which was not the intention of the legislature.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that there was no justification for holding that the provisions of section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act are applicable to the computation of the period of limitation for an application under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Consequently, the question referred to the Full Bench was answered in the negative, indicating that the period of 60 days cannot exclude the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order under sub-section (3) of section 10.

Separate Judgments:
- MOOTHAM, C.J., AGARWALA, J., UPADHYA, J., and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.: All agreed with the conclusion that the question should be answered in the negative, emphasizing that the application under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act does not fall within the categories covered by section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act.
- Reference Answered in the Negative: The court collectively concluded that the application was time-barred and the period taken in obtaining the copy of the order could not be excluded.

← Previous Next →