1966 (2) TMI 66 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
(a) Applicability of section 29 of the Limitation Act to revision applications under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
(b) Whether section 29 of the Limitation Act enlarges the scope of section 12(2) to include revision applications.
(c) Whether the requirement of rule 62 to accompany a revision application with a certified copy of the order justifies excluding the time taken to obtain such a copy for calculating limitation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 29 of the Limitation Act:
The first issue was whether section 29 of the Limitation Act applies to revision applications under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. It was conceded on behalf of the State that section 29 does indeed apply to such revision applications. Therefore, this question was answered affirmatively.

2. Enlargement of Scope of Section 12(2) by Section 29:
The second issue involved whether section 29 of the Limitation Act enlarges the scope of section 12(2) to include revision applications. The State argued that section 12(2) is limited to appeals, applications for leave to appeal, and applications for review of judgment, and does not extend to revision applications. However, it was noted that if the rules require a certified copy to accompany a revision petition and the time to obtain such a copy is not excluded, it would result in hardship to applicants. Various High Courts had differing views on this matter. The judgment concluded that "revision" in the said Act is comprehended within the term "appeal" in section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the time requisite for obtaining certified copies of the order sought to be revised must be excluded under section 12(2) read with section 29 of the Limitation Act. Thus, the second question was answered as follows: "Section 29 of the Limitation Act does not enlarge the scope of section 12(2) of the said Act, but the petitioner is entitled to exclude the time spent in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order, under section 12(2) of the Limitation Act."

3. Exclusion of Time Based on Rule 62 Requirement:
The third issue was whether the requirement of rule 62, that every revision application should be accompanied by a certified copy of the order, justifies excluding the time taken in obtaining such a copy for calculating limitation. The judgment concluded that the mere requirement of rule 62 does not permit a petitioner to exclude the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy in computing the period of limitation. Therefore, this question was answered in the negative.

Conclusion:
The reference was answered with the following conclusions:
1. Section 29 of the Limitation Act applies to revision applications under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
2. Section 29 does not enlarge the scope of section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, but the petitioner is entitled to exclude the time spent in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order under section 12(2) of the Limitation Act.
3. The requirement of rule 62 does not justify excluding the time taken to obtain a certified copy for calculating limitation.

Both parties were left to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →