1961 (1) TMI 66 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Petition under sub-section (2) of section 22 of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act seeking reference of questions of law to the High Court.
- Dismissal of the petition for revision by the Financial Commissioner due to inordinate delay.
- Question of law regarding the exercise of discretionary power in dismissing a petition for revision due to delay.
- Interpretation of the discretion vested in revising authorities for entertaining petitions for revision.

Analysis:

The petition was filed by a company engaged in quarrying slates, seeking reference of questions of law to the High Court arising from the Financial Commissioner's order dismissing their petition for revision. The company had faced challenges in the assessment of their taxable turnover, leading to a series of appeals and revisions culminating in the Financial Commissioner's dismissal due to a significant delay of 152 days in filing the revision petition.

The High Court, after considering the arguments, emphasized that the discretion to entertain revision petitions must be exercised judiciously, based on legal and substantial reasons rather than capriciously. The court noted that the dismissal of petitions due to unexplained delays is a valid exercise of discretion, citing past cases where such dismissals were upheld by various High Courts.

A key question raised during the proceedings was whether it was sound for the Financial Commissioner to decline entertaining the revision petition due to a 58-day delay, excluding the usual 90-day period for filing such petitions. The court highlighted that the exercise of discretion in such cases depends on individual circumstances, with delays sometimes being satisfactorily explained, leading to the revision being entertained on that basis.

The petitioner argued that since there is no specific limitation period for revision petitions under the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, all petitions should be entertained regardless of the filing time. However, the court rejected this argument, citing relevant legal precedents that did not support the petitioner's contention.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the questions of law raised did not warrant a reference to the Financial Commissioner, as the exercise of discretion in dismissing revision petitions due to delay is a case-specific determination. The petition was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the petitioner. The judgment was delivered by Mehar Singh, J., with agreement from Gosain K.L., J.