1966 (2) TMI 61 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Validity of the revision application presentation method under U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by an assessee against a sales tax assessment order for the year 1953-54, which was reduced by the Judge (Appeals), Sales Tax. The Commissioner of Sales Tax filed a revision application against the appellate order, which was accepted by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax. An objection was raised by the assessee regarding the mode of presentation of the revision application, as it was sent by local post instead of registered post as prescribed by rule 69 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948. The Additional Judge (Revisions) overruled the objection, stating that the revision application was signed by the Commissioner and accepted the application.

The questions referred to the Court were whether the revision petition was properly presented within the provisions of rule 69 and whether the presentation method would vitiate the entire revision proceedings. Section 10(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act allows the Revising Authority to call for and examine orders for legality or propriety. Rule 69(1) specifies two modes of presenting a revision application: by the applicant, agent, or lawyer in person or by registered post. The Judge (Revisions) has the discretion to accept the application if presented by the applicant, agent, or lawyer duly authorized by the applicant.

In this case, the revision application was presented by a peon employed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Court held that the peon was acting in the ordinary course of his duties and was duly authorized by the Commissioner to present the application. The Court emphasized that the law does not mandate written authorization for agents presenting applications. Even if the peon's delivery was considered equivalent to ordinary post, the Court ruled that the Judge (Revisions) did not act illegally in accepting the application, as rule 69 does not make registered post mandatory but provides a benefit to the applicant. The acceptance of the revision application did not invalidate the subsequent proceedings by the Revising Authority.

In conclusion, the Court answered the questions affirmatively and negatively, respectively, and directed a copy of the judgment to be sent to the concerned authorities. The Commissioner of Sales Tax was awarded costs, and the reference was answered accordingly.