1962 (9) TMI 39 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "communication by the Tribunal of any order" under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
2. Determining the starting point of the limitation period for filing appeals under the Act.
3. Obligation of the appellate or revisional authority to supply copies of orders under Rule 61 of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of the term "communication by the Tribunal of any order" under section 44(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The petitioner's applications under this section were dismissed as time-barred by the Board of Revenue. The Board contended that fixing a specific date for order and passing orders on that date constituted communication, even if the petitioner was absent. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing that communication implies actual receipt of the order by the appellant. The Court analyzed various provisions of the Act and rules to support its interpretation, highlighting the necessity of delivering or sending copies of orders to the assessee.

2. The judgment addressed the issue of determining the starting point of the limitation period for filing appeals under the Act. Sections 38(4), 39(3), and 44(1) and (2) of the Act were examined in this context. The Court clarified that time does not commence until a copy of the order passed in appeal is communicated to the appellant. It emphasized the importance of actual communication of the order to trigger the limitation period, as opposed to mere knowledge of the order. The Court referred to relevant rules under the Act that mandate the delivery or sending of copies of orders to the assessee.

3. The judgment also delved into the obligation of the appellate or revisional authority to supply copies of orders under Rule 61 of the Act. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument that Rule 61 only required supplying copies upon request, asserting that the rule imposed an obligation on the authority to provide copies to the appellant and send another copy to the concerned officer. Citing a Bombay High Court decision, the Court held that the time for presenting an application for a reference to the High Court does not begin until the copy of the order is supplied to the aggrieved party. The judgment concluded that the impugned orders were erroneous and directed the Board to entertain the petitioner's applications and deal with them in accordance with the law.