1959 (7) TMI 51 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 regarding the time limit for filing an application for reference to the High Court.
- Determination of the competence and maintainability of an application under sub-section (3) of section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court in this case pertained to an application under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, seeking a direction for the revising authority to refer a case to the High Court. The applicant failed to file the application within the prescribed time limit of 60 days from the passing of the revisional order, rendering the application time-barred. The revising authority dismissed the application on the grounds of being time-barred and lacking merit for reference to the High Court. Subsequently, the applicant filed another application under sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Act, requesting the High Court to direct the revising authority to state a case. However, the High Court noted that its power to call for a reference is limited to cases where the revising authority refuses to state the case under section 11(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. In this instance, the revising authority's initial determination of the application being time-barred meant that there was no competent application for reference, thus precluding any consideration of refusal or acceptance of the prayer made in the application.

The Court emphasized that the revising authority's dismissal of the application based on limitation did not constitute a refusal of the prayer but rather a rejection due to the lack of competence to consider the prayer itself. The Court clarified that a refusal of a prayer can only occur when the authority is competent to accept or reject the prayer, which was not the case here. Therefore, the application under sub-section (3) of section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act before the High Court was deemed incompetent and not maintainable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application with costs, affirming the decision of the revising authority and highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and procedural requirements in such matters.