1964 (3) TMI 77 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the limitation for filing a revision petition under section 21 of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, is 90 days.
2. Whether the Financial Commissioner was justified in dismissing the revision petition in limine due to an 8-day delay.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation Period for Filing a Revision Petition:
The primary issue was whether there is a statutory limitation period for filing a revision petition under section 21 of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The court noted that "though there was no statutory limitation in the Act prescribing a period of 90 days," the practice had been that revision petitions filed more than 90 days after the Excise and Taxation Commissioner's order, excluding the time spent obtaining copies, were considered time-barred. The court emphasized that "there is nothing in the language of section 21 which prohibits the Financial Commissioner from refusing to entertain revisions which are filed after a long delay unless a cogent explanation is furnished for that delay." The court concluded that the 90-day period set by the Financial Commissioners was reasonable and not so short as to render the right of approaching the Financial Commissioners in revision illusory.

2. Justification for Dismissing the Revision Petition Due to Delay:
The second issue was whether the Financial Commissioner was justified in dismissing the revision petition due to an 8-day delay. The court held that "the Financial Commissioner was not justified in dismissing the revision on the ground that it was filed more than 90 days, after excluding the days spent in obtaining copies, from the date of the decision of the Commissioner." The court referenced the Kangra Valley Slate Company case, stating that "it will be a sound exercise of discretionary powers to decline to entertain the revision on account of the delay of 58 days in some cases but it may not be so in some other cases." The court stressed that each case should be decided based on its facts and circumstances, and the Financial Commissioner should exercise discretion judiciously.

Additional Observations:
One judge added that "fixation of period of limitation for so approaching would ordinarily also pertain to legislative sphere" and that "drawing of an arbitrary line of 90 days for all cases... partakes more of a legislative rather than of a judicial function." The judge emphasized that "an authority may offend even by adopting a self-imposed rigid rule resulting virtually in abdication of genuine discretion." The judge concluded that the Financial Commissioner must decide "in his judicial discretion by looking at all the relevant attending circumstances whether or not the delay is so inordinate as to justify refusal to afford a hearing on the merits to the aggrieved party."

Conclusion:
The reference was answered in the negative, indicating that the Financial Commissioner was not bound to consider the revision petition on the merits due to the unexplained delay. The court held that the Financial Commissioner has the discretion to refuse to entertain a revision petition if it is filed after an unreasonable delay without a satisfactory explanation. The parties were left to bear their own costs of the reference.