1960 (5) TMI 23 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under section 24(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act to direct the Sales Tax Tribunal to refer questions of law to the High Court.
2. Preliminary objection raised on the ground of limitation regarding the filing of the application.
3. Changes brought about by the Orissa Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1957, including the constitution of the Sales Tax Tribunal and its powers.
4. Interpretation of rules 70 and 73 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules regarding the delivery of orders by the Tribunal.
5. Discrepancy in the terminology used by the Tribunal in passing orders.
6. Failure of the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal and its impact on the limitation period.
7. Reference to previous court decisions and their applicability to the present case.
8. Argument regarding the date from which the limitation period should be calculated.
9. Decision on the application's timeliness and the inability to condone the delay.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two applications made under section 24(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act seeking the High Court to direct the Sales Tax Tribunal to refer questions of law for consideration. The Tribunal had previously rejected a similar application under section 24(1) and accepted only some questions for reference. The main issue raised was the timeliness of the current applications, as they were filed two days after the prescribed period of thirty days from the Tribunal's order, leading to a preliminary objection on grounds of limitation. The judgment delves into the changes introduced by the Orissa Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1957, which established the Sales Tax Tribunal as a judicial authority with specific powers, including the duty to refer points of law to the High Court under section 24(1).

Furthermore, the judgment discusses the interpretation of rules 70 and 73 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules concerning the delivery of orders by the Tribunal. It highlights a discrepancy in the terminology used by the Tribunal, where the terms "order" and "judgment" were considered synonymous, impacting the understanding of the proceedings. The petitioner's failure to appear before the Tribunal on a crucial date and subsequent attempts to challenge the limitation period were also addressed, emphasizing the importance of diligence in legal proceedings.

The judgment references past court decisions such as Bharat Sabaigrass Ltd. v. Collector of Commercial Taxes, Orissa and Satrughan Mall v. Revenue Commissioner, Orissa to distinguish the applicability of rules pre and post the establishment of the Sales Tax Tribunal. Additionally, it dismisses arguments based on a Bombay decision and clarifies the starting point for calculating the limitation period as per the Orissa Sales Tax Act. Ultimately, the Court ruled the application as time-barred, upholding the preliminary objection raised on grounds of limitation and dismissing the petition without costs.