1959 (10) TMI 18 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of tax assessment under section 13(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act.
2. Obligation of the Board of Revenue to decide the legality of the assessment in the revision application.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Tax Assessment under Section 13(5):
The assessee, a P.W.D. Contractor, was initially registered under the Patna Urban Circle but later transferred to the Patna Rural Circle. Despite this transfer, the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax assessed the assessee under the Patna Urban Circle for the years 1948-49, 1949-50, and 1950-51. The assessee contended that he was assessed twice for the same taxable turnover in both circles. However, before addressing this contention, the court needed to resolve the issue of whether the appeal filed by the assessee was time-barred.

2. Obligation of the Board of Revenue to Decide the Legality of the Assessment:
The court first addressed the issue of the appeal's timeliness. Under section 24(2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, an appeal must be presented within 45 days of receiving the demand notice. The assessee received the notice on December 18, 1951, and applied for a certified copy of the assessment order on January 29, 1952, which was delivered on February 1, 1952. Thus, the last day for filing the appeal, after deducting the time taken to obtain the certified copy, was February 5, 1952. However, the appeal was filed on February 13, 1952, making it eight days late.

The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax held the appeal as time-barred and did not accept the assessee's explanation of illness, supported by a medical certificate, as a valid reason for the delay. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Board of Revenue upheld this decision, emphasizing the lack of diligence on the part of the assessee. The court noted that the medical certificate appeared to be freshly written and that the application for a copy was made during the alleged period of illness, casting doubt on the genuineness of the illness claim.

The court further elaborated that for a delay to be condoned, the applicant must demonstrate due diligence throughout the process. The assessee failed to show such diligence, as he waited until the last moment to take necessary steps, thereby risking the timely filing of the appeal. The court referenced several precedents supporting the principle that negligence or lack of diligence disqualifies one from seeking the court's indulgence in condoning delays.

Given the findings, the court concluded that the delay in filing the appeal was rightly not condoned, and the appeal was correctly held to be time-barred. Consequently, it was unnecessary for the Board of Revenue to address the legality of the assessment in the revision application. Thus, the second question was answered in favor of the State of Bihar and against the assessee, rendering the first question academic and not requiring an answer.

Conclusion:
The second question was answered in favor of the State of Bihar, affirming that the Board of Revenue was not obligated to decide the legality of the assessment due to the appeal being time-barred. The first question was deemed academic and was not answered. There was no order as to costs.